Microsoft quietly upgrades the Surface Pro 2's CPU

By on January 2, 2014, 7:00 PM
microsoft, intel, cpu, microsoft surface, surface pro, surface pro 2

After just two months on the market, Microsoft has quietly upgraded the processor inside their Surface Pro 2 tablet. The latest batch of units being sold at retail has seen the Intel CPU upgraded from an Intel 'Haswell' Core i5-4200U to a Core i5-4300U, which provides a few modest improvements.

Primarily, the base clock speed of the dual-core CPU has increased from 1.6 GHz to 1.9 GHz, with a comparable increase in Turbo clock speed from 2.6 GHz to 2.9 GHz. The maximum dynamic frequency of the Intel HD Graphics 4400 chip has also increased slightly, from 1.0 GHz to 1.1 GHz. Other specifications such as cache (3 MB), memory bandwidth (25.6 GB/s) and TDP (15 watts) remain the same.

For what it's worth, extra CPU features include vPro, VT-d, TSX-NI, Trusted Execution Technology and a few other enterprise-related bits and pieces. Whether software will take advantage of these extra features is another story.

It's not clear why Microsoft upgraded the processor in the later models of the Surface Pro 2, with the company declining to provide specifics when contacted by The Verge. "Microsoft routinely makes small changes to internal components over the lifetime of a product, based on numerous factors including supply chain partnerships, availability, and value for our customers," a spokesperson said.

Reports indicate the change was made sometime in late December, with most future stock set to include the i5-4300U out of the box.




User Comments: 16

Got something to say? Post a comment
amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

I like the new convertibles/splits/hybrids.

One of these days might buy me one.

My iPad2 is nice but could use more power.

VitalyT VitalyT said:

It's not clear why Microsoft upgraded the processor in the later models of the Surface Pro 2

How truly unfathomable...

1 person liked this | pmcardle said:

I just received my new SP2, 256 GB model today and it has the newer 4300U, 1.90 GHz CPU. I couldn't be happier! I synced it with my W8.1 desktop and it loaded all aps and setting automatically. Another big plus is that I can easily access all my files from my desktop on the Surface. I'm thinking I could have gotten by with the 128 GB model but better safe than sorry I guess.

I performed a total reset on my iPad 3 and set it up for my wife - good riddance to that worthless toy!

Guest said:

I performed a total reset on my iPad 3 and set it up for my wife - good riddance to that worthless toy!

worthless toy for a worthless wife?

just kidding mate... happy new year... :)

if you did not appreciate the value of ipad 3, why did you buy it?

Guest said:

Yep couldnt agree more. ive changed over from ipad to surface and couldnt be happier.

the only issue I have is that I wish there was a silicone cover available for the surface. Gap in the market..

pmcardle said:

I performed a total reset on my iPad 3 and set it up for my wife - good riddance to that worthless toy!

worthless toy for a worthless wife?

just kidding mate... happy new year...

if you did not appreciate the value of ipad 3, why did you buy it?

I got roped into the iPad hype and thought it was cool. I then realized it was nothing more than a phone OS that was under complete control of Apple's ecosystem.

Guest said:

They probably realized their bloated OS needed a little more horsepower to perform reasonably well

pmcardle said:

They probably realized their bloated OS needed a little more horsepower to perform reasonably well

Bloated OS? Statements like these are exactly why MS doesn't listen to their user base. Totally clueless...

Railman said:

They probably realized their bloated OS needed a little more horsepower to perform reasonably well

Bloated OS? Statements like these are exactly why MS doesn't listen to their user base. Totally clueless...

The answer is yes and no. W8 is less bloated than W7. That was necessary for it to work on devices such as the Surface. However compared to other OS it is still bloated. MS still have a lot of work in order to cut the fat. They have made some progress but at the cost of reducing user choice.

pmcardle said:

They probably realized their bloated OS needed a little more horsepower to perform reasonably well

Bloated OS? Statements like these are exactly why MS doesn't listen to their user base. Totally clueless...

The answer is yes and no. W8 is less bloated than W7. That was necessary for it to work on devices such as the Surface. However compared to other OS it is still bloated. MS still have a lot of work in order to cut the fat. They have made some progress but at the cost of reducing user choice.

Other OS, you must mean Apple whose OS only has to work with very specific hardware. Windows OS's have always had to work with a very wide array of different hardware/software so it does require a little extra under the hood. The only bloat comes from crapware that vendors add to offset cost. You can install a fresh copy of W8 on any configuration of hardware and it will work flawlessly. Apple OS will install flawlessly to but only on very specific hardware. No other OS can.

Railman said:

They probably realized their bloated OS needed a little more horsepower to perform reasonably well

Bloated OS? Statements like these are exactly why MS doesn't listen to their user base. Totally clueless...

The answer is yes and no. W8 is less bloated than W7. That was necessary for it to work on devices such as the Surface. However compared to other OS it is still bloated. MS still have a lot of work in order to cut the fat. They have made some progress but at the cost of reducing user choice.

Other OS, you must mean Apple whose OS only has to work with very specific hardware. Windows OS's have always had to work with a very wide array of different hardware/software so it does require a little extra under the hood. The only bloat comes from crapware that vendors add to offset cost. You can install a fresh copy of W8 on any configuration of hardware and it will work flawlessly. Apple OS will install flawlessly to but only on very specific hardware. No other OS can.

No I was not thinking of Apple. W8 does not necessarily work flawlessly on any configuration of hardware. You only have to read some of the comments regarding W8 driver issues. Clearly you have not heard of Linux. An impressive choice of OSs. I ran a dual boot of XP and Debian. Debian was so bloat free compared to XP.

pmcardle said:

No I was not thinking of Apple. W8 does not necessarily work flawlessly on any configuration of hardware. You only have to read some of the comments regarding W8 driver issues. Clearly you have not heard of Linux. An impressive choice of OSs. I ran a dual boot of XP and Debian. Debian was so bloat free compared to XP.

Windows 8 could have some driver issues on very old hardware. Can't please everyone I guess. Yes, I've heard of and used Linux. It had way too many driver issues on "newer" hardware. Never heard of Debian...

Railman said:

Windows 8 could have some driver issues on very old hardware. Can't please everyone I guess. Yes, I've heard of and used Linux. It had way too many driver issues on "newer" hardware. Never heard of Debian...

I agree that Linux does have issues with drivers with newer hardware but it does has a strength when it comes to established hardware. You are more likely to find drivers for older equipment. It's seems that equipment that ran happily on W8 does not necessarily run on W8.1.

Frankly it it an issue that is only of interest to a small majority. Most people buy new equipment with the current version of the operating system be that W8.1, OSX or Chrome. I was happy to experiment with Linux as it was free. I would not consider upgrading from XP or W7 to W8 if I have to pay for it. I would rather put the cash to other uses.

Guest said:

I agree that Linux does have issues with drivers with newer hardware but it does has a strength when it comes to established hardware. You are more likely to find drivers for older equipment. It's seems that equipment that ran happily on W8 does not necessarily run on W8.1.

Frankly it it an issue that is only of interest to a small majority. Most people buy new equipment with the current version of the operating system be that W8.1, OSX or Chrome. I was happy to experiment with Linux as it was free. I would not consider upgrading from XP or W7 to W8 if I have to pay for it. I would rather put the cash to other uses.

So let me get this straight... you aren't happy with something if you don't get it for free? What about that fancy new hardware that your "free" OS runs on, should I simply find some free hardware to run it on too? This is exactly the kind of statement that annoys me to no end. Maybe once upon a time, when I was still a teenager and living on my parents budget and had no money of my own did I wish for everything to be free, but you see, this thing called "growing up" and making your "own money" happened. Then I could see the value and joy in purchasing something to call my own. You may argue but then they make a new OS and the one I bought is no longer current and I have to shell out for the newer OS. Well, when that fancy new hardware decides to get outdated too, why don't you just go pick up the next version for free too? Oh, wait... never mind!

Go ahead and try build a system for free and see where it gets you. The OS is every bit a part of the whole system as the hard drive or the motherboard, so why then do people have issues in paying for something that's perhaps not as tangible but every bit as important? Windows, even with all its faults, is a one size fits all solution that works surprisingly well for 99% of all situations out there. I hear people complain that they need to pay X amount for windows, the OS or the thing that makes all that shiny new hardware do anything, and that its too expensive. People budget for new parts but fail to factor in the cost of an OS, and then take to forums such as these to "express" their distaste at having to pay for something, but when they spend hundreds of Dollars more on games, bits of software that will probably only be used for mere weeks, they forget about the once off cost of the thing that enables them to play those very same games.

I was guilty of using pirated copies of windows for many years, but then I said to myself, "Why spend thousands on hardware but neglect software". I now own a legit copy of Windows 8. Yes, its different to windows 7, yes the start menu is gone, but I never really used it to begin with, not since windows XP anyway. I am a software developer, and am definitely one of those so called "Power Users", and it took me all of 10 minutes to figure out the OS, get on with my day and move on. I cant even think of moving back to Windows 7 full time (I use it at work occasionally) as it seems somehow foreign to me now, but I digress...

Moan all you want about why you need to pay for an OS, but then don't buy all those legit games, or any software for that matter, because you are just being hypocritical.

Railman said:

I agree that Linux does have issues with drivers with newer hardware but it does has a strength when it comes to established hardware. You are more likely to find drivers for older equipment. It's seems that equipment that ran happily on W8 does not necessarily run on W8.1.

Frankly it it an issue that is only of interest to a small majority. Most people buy new equipment with the current version of the operating system be that W8.1, OSX or Chrome. I was happy to experiment with Linux as it was free. I would not consider upgrading from XP or W7 to W8 if I have to pay for it. I would rather put the cash to other uses.

So let me get this straight... you aren't happy with something if you don't get it for free? What about that fancy new hardware that your "free" OS runs on, should I simply find some free hardware to run it on too? This is exactly the kind of statement that annoys me to no end. Maybe once upon a time, when I was still a teenager and living on my parents budget and had no money of my own did I wish for everything to be free, but you see, this thing called "growing up" and making your "own money" happened. Then I could see the value and joy in purchasing something to call my own. You may argue but then they make a new OS and the one I bought is no longer current and I have to shell out for the newer OS. Well, when that fancy new hardware decides to get outdated too, why don't you just go pick up the next version for free too? Oh, wait... never mind!

Go ahead and try build a system for free and see where it gets you. The OS is every bit a part of the whole system as the hard drive or the motherboard, so why then do people have issues in paying for something that's perhaps not as tangible but every bit as important? Windows, even with all its faults, is a one size fits all solution that works surprisingly well for 99% of all situations out there. I hear people complain that they need to pay X amount for windows, the OS or the thing that makes all that shiny new hardware do anything, and that its too expensive. People budget for new parts but fail to factor in the cost of an OS, and then take to forums such as these to "express" their distaste at having to pay for something, but when they spend hundreds of Dollars more on games, bits of software that will probably only be used for mere weeks, they forget about the once off cost of the thing that enables them to play those very same games.

I was guilty of using pirated copies of windows for many years, but then I said to myself, "Why spend thousands on hardware but neglect software". I now own a legit copy of Windows 8. Yes, its different to windows 7, yes the start menu is gone, but I never really used it to begin with, not since windows XP anyway. I am a software developer, and am definitely one of those so called "Power Users", and it took me all of 10 minutes to figure out the OS, get on with my day and move on. I cant even think of moving back to Windows 7 full time (I use it at work occasionally) as it seems somehow foreign to me now, but I digress...

Moan all you want about why you need to pay for an OS, but then don't buy all those legit games, or any software for that matter, because you are just being hypocritical.

Don't get your knickers in a twist. I don't see any reason to pay for the W8 when I have a perfectly good OS designed for an existing PC. If I was building a new machine I would consider buying an OS.

It looks like you need to grow up, but as you are posting as a guest you are probably a troll! I suspect an apology will not be forthcoming.

Railman said:

Just had another thought about the Guest post who admitted to using pirated software. It is perfectly legal for me to use Linux free of charge. So who holds the moral high ground?

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.