ASUS Zenbook UX32A-DB31 13.3" Ultrabook | 3rd gen i3-2367 | 320GB w/ 24GB SSD - $550 w/ FS @ Newegg

Core i3? Display at 1366x768? Not seeing what's "Ultra" about this book. I think I'd take a refurb UX31A at a similar price over this.

Here's the refurb UX31-RSL8 for $56 more. Display is 1600x900 and it has a Cire i5 CPU AND a 128GB SSD instead of a 320 mechanical drive.

Quote from goibhniu : Core i3? Display at 1366x768? Not seeing what's "Ultra" about this book. I think I'd take a refurb UX31A at a similar price over this. Here's the refurb UX31-RSL8 for $56 more. Display is 1600x900 and it has a Cire i5 CPU AND a 128GB SSD instead of a 320 mechanical drive.

link?

Quote from jellysandwich : link?

There is no such computer on the Newegg site. There is a notebook for ~$56 more, but it is 1366x768 resolution and is a refurb.

Quote from jellysandwich : link?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Pro...-_-na-_-na

i3-2367M is 2nd gen Sandy Bridge, not 3rd gen Ivy Bridge.

Quote from Pizzahut : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Pro...-_-na-_-na

2nd generation i5, HD3000 graphics, 1366x768 resolution and refurb. As I just stated, there is no ultrabook with 1600x900 resolution on Newegg for ~$600 at the moment.

Quote from Lpearson42 : 2nd generation i5, HD3000 graphics, 1366x768 resolution and refurb. As I just stated, there is no ultrabook with 1600x900 resolution on Newegg for ~$600 at the moment.

You are wrong, and he linked right to it. The UX31-RSL8 is the Ultrabook in question. It has a 1600x900 resolution. NewEgg has the specs listed wrong, but if you doubt me you can Google it. There are also references to reviews on that model on NewEgg's site that it was a 1600x900. If you look at Best Buy's site they had an UX31-RSL8 refurb available too, listed as 1366x768 but had multiple purchasers pointing out that it is 1600x900.

As I said, it's a refurb but it runs circles around a Core i3 with a 1366x768 display for less than 10% more money.

Quote from hmmwv : i3-2367M is 2nd gen Sandy Bridge, not 3rd gen Ivy Bridge.

Yeah, but it's an i3. Does it really matter what generation it is, it's still going to be crap. Read the reviews if you doubt me, they almost all complain about it bogging down during routine use. Get yourself at least an i5, preferably an i7. You can do so much better at the $600 price point.

Quote from goibhniu : You are wrong, and he linked right to it. The UX31-RSL8 is the Ultrabook in question. It has a 1600x900 resolution. NewEgg has the specs listed wrong, but if you doubt me you can Google it. There are also references to reviews on that model on NewEgg's site that it was a 1600x900. If you look at Best Buy's site they had an UX31-RSL8 refurb available too, listed as 1366x768 but had multiple purchasers pointing out that it is 1600x900. As I said, it's a refurb but it runs circles around a Core i3 with a 1366x768 display for less than 10% more money.

Great, now I might have to apologize AND buy one

Well they confirm the higher res screen here [pcmag.com]. Now my only concern is if I actually RECEIVE what I order.

There seems to be mass confusion on the Newegg reviews, people stating they received a different model number, etc. I'll check the BestBuy reviews, is there a definitive statement regarding this computer's resolution anywhere?

RSl8 has 2 variation. i5-2557 and i5-2467, the later one has lower ref, according to all the sites I can find. Also this model seems to be made for bestbuy only.

Quote from Pizzahut : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Pro...-_-na-_-na

OK My apologies it does appear this laptop does have 1600x900 resolution, it is just mis-labeled. However, there does appear to be an issue over customers receiving a different model number than what they ordered.

Bad reviews!

Quote from goibhniu : Yeah, but it's an i3. Does it really matter what generation it is, it's still going to be crap. Read the reviews if you doubt me, they almost all complain about it bogging down during routine use. Get yourself at least an i5, preferably an i7. You can do so much better at the $600 price point.

Huh? I was simply trying to point out the error in the title.