Samsung introduces $1600 ATIV Smart PC Pro 700TC tablet with 4G LTE

Samsung’s ATIV Smart PC Pro is a Windows 8 tablet with an Intel Core i5 processor, a keyboard dock that lets you use the machine like a notebook, a pressure-sensitive digital pen for writing or drawing, and a full HD display.

The ATIV Smart PC Pro normally sells for around $1129 and up, but now Samsung is outing a new model with a suggested retail price of $1600. What do you get for the extra cash? Built-in support for AT&T’s 4G LTE network.

Samsung ATIV Smart PC Pro

The Samsung ATIV Smart PC Pro 4G LTE 700TC is aimed at business customers, which could help explain the high price, even if it might not entirely justify it. After all, that $1600 price tag doesn’t actually include 4G connectivity. You’ll have to pay extra for a data plan.

Aside from the LTE module, the new tablet is pretty much the same as the WiFi-only version.

It has an 11.6 inch, 1920 x 1080 pixel display, an Intel Core i5-3317U Ivy Bridge processor, 4GB of RAM, and a 128GB solid state disk. The tablet runs Windows 8 Pro 64-bit software, has a Gorilla Glass display, front and rear cameras, 802.11n WiFi Bluetooth 4.0, a micro HDMI port, and up to 8 hours of battery life.

The tablet measures 12″ x 7.5″ x 0.5″ and weighs 2 pounds.

  • 1stkorean

    I must say my countrymen have lost their freaking minds. Pictured is the Samsung Building in Seoul and it ain’t cheap guess it needs to be paid for.

  • guest

    NO, as in not at those prices…cannot wait for AMD to enter this space with it’s new APU’s for tablets to bring those insane prices down! Should be available for late summer coupled with Microsoft price reductions on windows 8 should see these hybrids available well south of $1000

    • CyberGusa

      Unfortunately, no, AMD based Ultrabooks and especially Tablets aren’t that much cheaper than Intel based ones… At least if you’re expecting more than a $200 difference in pricing… Since the cost of the system makes up the majority of the cost and a difference in CPU cost won’t offset it by that much…

      We’ve already seen this with Ultrabook releases, such as from HP, that offered AMD Trinity instead of Intel Core i-Series.

      So remember, these are premium products and they’re going to be pricey until they lower the cost of the whole system and not just any one part.

      • Guest

        Wrong, you should be smarter than that…given that you comment all the time and you seem to know most of the time what your are talking about! An AMD APU like the TEMASH/ KABINI will have a small die size and cost a lot less than HASWELL…INTEL will be looking for $200 to $ $300 for those processors! AMD on the other hand will deliver solid performance for a lot closer to $100 per chip, combine this with the MICROSOFT rebate on W/8 about $90 per licence will give everyone who waits for the back to school season will have better choices and lower prices…you don’t need a core i7 in one of those hybrids a 4 core TEMASH with very good RADEON graphics will deliver a very good experience with very good battery life.

      • CyberGusa

        First, Temash and Kabini are for the low end!

        Temash specifically is replacing Desna for AMD’s Tablet optimized line and will compete directly with the next gen ATOM Bay Trail series.

        Only the quad core version with Turbo mode even enters the low end of the Ultrabook performance range.

        While Kabini simply replaces Brazos/Fusion series. Though, simiarly, Kabini will be better than Brazos/Fusion but it’ll still be their low end solution, which is like Intel’s Pentium and Celeron series… All of which is also much cheaper than the Core i-Series!

        Basically, if you’re going to compare then compare correctly as these products are meant for specific product ranges.

        Second, it’ll be Kaveri that’ll replace Trinity and it won’t be as cheap as the Kabini and Temash series. Using AMD’s 3rd generation APU with Steamroller cores, Graphics Core Next and HSA Enhancement.

        While Kabini and Temash use the lower end Jaguar cores, etc. and AMD’s South Islands, which supports discrete graphics, will of course cost even more than Kaveri.

        So no, you are mistaken if you still believe a AMD solution that is actually meant for Ultrabooks and similar higher end tablets will be more than about about $200 cheaper.

        At best, you’re just confusing good low end solutions with what higher end products cost. Also, good graphics can’t replace good processor performance for every possible application.

        Again, most of the cost is from the whole system. The processor can be costly but the difference in cost of just that one part isn’t enough to reduce the price to below $1000 with the high cost of this system.

      • Guest

        Some of what you say is accurate, but the KABINI/ TEMASH platform will have a lot of high end features: 4 real cores admittedly lower per performance than core i series but still more than enough and way better than ATOM( and you will not see the next gen ATOM in 2013 so we can ignore that for now) turbo and TURBO DOCK, features than INTEL only offers on core i5 and above not to mention good graphics as GCN is designed from the start with compute in mind not just graphics. This more than enough for many of us in portable devices. On the $ equation add $100 saving on the chip + $100 on Windows license+$100 in extra competition from a greater variety of machines available on the market… so that is a substantially lower in my book! I value your input…it’s just that a liitle bit more “even handedness” would be nice on your part

      • CyberGusa

        Sorry, but even handedness is what I’m doing. You’re clearly making lop sided comparisons and it doesn’t justify itself with what’s good enough as that is a completely different and subjective matter for what would it cost to provide a given performance range device.

        Something in the range of low end Ultrabook may be good enough for most people but for those who need or want performance then they’re still going to need or want the more powerful systems.

        While, if you were even handed then you would compare the low end examples from AMD to the same range products from Intel. Temash and Kabini won’t compete directly with Core i-Series but rather the ATOM, Celeron, and Pentium series, which are all much cheaper than the Core i-Series.

        Really, what’s good enough is so subjective that even the ATOM can be considered good enough for people who just want to web browse and handle their email.

        So in no way can that be called a fair comparison to compare AMD’s low end to Intel’s high end and justify on what you think is good enough.

        Besides, gaming also requires good CPU performance, since not all games can get by with just good graphical performance.

        True gaming still requires discrete graphics, the best imbedded graphics still barely reach into the low mid-range of what discrete graphic cards are capable of providing.

        So playing the latest PC games and anywhere near max settings will still require a more powerful system… Among other non-gaming examples I could name for why people need or want more powerful system.

        Another problem is your comparison to the ATOM, if you’re gong to compare the next gen AMD offerings then you should also factor the next gen Intel offerings too, as only then would it be in any way fair or even handed.

        The next gen 22nm Bay Trail ATOM will also bring out quad cores and list of other improvements. Like previous comparison between ATOM and AMD Fusion/Brazos, AMD will clearly have the graphical advantage but it may not necessarily get the CPU advantage and the ATOM is likely to hold onto its power efficiency advantage.

        Other factors like the Windows license actually don’t cost the OEMs that much, especially if they load up on bloatware as that’s one way they cut costs.

        Mind, OEMs mainly deal with volume licenses and bulk license sales will always be cheaper than individual licenses, especially compared to retail…

        Really, I’ve made my point abundantly clear by now. For an actual even handed comparison a AMD system won’t be that much cheaper than the equivalent Intel system.

        Sure, you can compare high end to low end but lets not pretend they don’t both have low ends, along with mid and high ends.

  • Carl

    How much would it be if it had 1368×768 instead 1920×1080?

    I’m not one of those HD fanatics. 1920×1080 on an 11.6″ Windows device is a gimmick. An expensive one at that.