Tuesday, May 26th 2020

Xiaomi Launches RedmiBook 13, 14 and 16 Laptops Powered by AMD Ryzen 4000: Poised to Rule Them All

Xiaomi today announced the impending release of three new laptops with 13", 14", and 16" diagonals. The ideal is tantalizingly clear: to launch a laptop available at all the most popular resolutions, with the specs to match, and pricing that's incredibly aggressive - as is Xiaomi's usual trademark. All three Xiaomi RedmiBook models carry AMD's Latest Ryzen 4000 CPUs in the form of the Ryzen 5 4500U or Ryzen 7 4700U - so you know you're in for very attractive performance and battery life metrics from the get go.

The RedmiBook 13 comes in three configurations. The base model, featuring an AMD Ryzen 5 4500U CPU, 8 GB RAM and a 512 GB SSD variant is priced at CNY 3,799 (roughly $530); the AMD Ryzen 5 4500U CPU, 16 GB RAM and 512 GB SSD variant is priced at CNY 3,999 (roughly $560); upgrade for an AMD Ryzen 7 4700U CPU (Vega 8 graphics) paired with 16 GB RAM and a 1 TB SSD and you'll be asked for CNY 4,999 (roughly $700).
Move on to a 14" or 16" diagonal and you'll (oddly) lose the 1 TB SSD on the top configuration. All other specs are the same across the RedmiBook 14 and 16 compared to the RedmiBook 13: an AMD Ryzen 5 4500U CPU and 8 or 16 GB of RAM, and an AMD Ryzen 7 4700U CPU paired with 16 GB RAM. Pricing for these three configurations is reported at an odd $530, $560 and $630. I say odd, because a bigger panel (and consequently bigger chassis) should theoretically increase the BOM, which is usually reflected on price. Perhaps Xiaomi is already achieving a comfortable profit on the 13" version, which it apparently expects to be the best seller, that it is betting on market penetration for their bigger models via aggressive pricing.
All models feature a 1080p screen, and both the RedmiBook 13 and 14 feature a screen with 250 nits brightness, which is upgraded in the RedmiBook 16 to a 300 nits one. A 40 Wh battery moves the RedmiBook 13 and 14, while the 16 ups that to a 46 Wh battery. All three laptops come with 2x USB Type-C, 1x USB Type-A, 1x HDMI, and 1x 3.5 mm headphone jack. They also have dual band Wi-Fi and Bluetooth v5.0, as well as 2x 2 W speakers with DTS.
All models ship with Windows 10 Home Chinese Edition. The RedmiBook 13 measures 307.3 x 195 x 17.8 mm and weighs 1.23 Kg. The RedmiBook 14 measures 320 x 203 x 16.85 mm and weighs 1.2 Kg. Lastly, the RedmiBook 16 measures 367.20 x 232.85 x 17.55 mm and weighs 1.8 Kg.

Availability is expected on June 1st, with an ongoing sale of the first unit batch, as usual with Xiaomi. Expect global availability (likely provided by retailers) to push pricing upwards.
Source: Gadgets.ndtv.com
Add your own comment

23 Comments on Xiaomi Launches RedmiBook 13, 14 and 16 Laptops Powered by AMD Ryzen 4000: Poised to Rule Them All

#1
Lightofhonor
4700u 13inch should be interesting! Basically replace the MX250 laptops.
Posted on Reply
#2
john_
I know that US members will keep talking about Chinese laptops and the bad Chinese government and stuff, but the situation with US OEMs and their love for Intel is so ridiculous and so annoying that I really hope the best in any Chinese company that will come out with a full series of Renoir laptops.
Posted on Reply
#3
Chrispy_
I'm guessing from those prices that this isn't LPDDR4X so the integrated graphics will be disappointing for gaming.

Still, Renoir seems to have good general-purpose CPU performance and the Ryzen 5 models are an aboslute bargain.
john_
I know that US members will keep talking about Chinese laptops and the bad Chinese government and stuff, but the situation with US OEMs and their love for Intel is so ridiculous and so annoying that I really hope the best in any Chinese company that will come out with a full series of Renoir laptops.
Meanwhile everyone in the US is buying Apple which is also a chinese laptop, and willingly providing all their data to Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Facebook and the US government - all of whom do nothing shady at any point.

I liked the interviews with both Amazon and Google staff who were basically commenting about how they left their jobs in disgust because they were hired to transcode Alexa/Google recordings when it obvious that the users being transcoded hadn't asked or given permission to record audio; Transcoding recordings of drug deals, noisy sex, domestic arguments, racism, sexism....

Here's some reading if you care, it's really not hard to find. We have voluntarily walked into an Orwellian 1984 over the last decade. I wonder what future generations will think of us, if they're even allowed the right to free thought or to voice their opinions!
www.google.com/search?&q=amazon+google+facebook+microsoft+transcoding+recordings+without+user+consent
Posted on Reply
#4
xkm1948
Chrispy_
I'm guessing from those prices that this isn't LPDDR4X so the integrated graphics will be disappointing for gaming.

Still, Renoir seems to have good general-purpose CPU performance and the Ryzen 5 models are an aboslute bargain.


Meanwhile everyone in the US is buying Apple which is also a chinese laptop, and willingly providing all their data to Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Facebook and the US government - all of whom do nothing shady at any point.

I liked the interviews with both Amazon and Google staff who were basically commenting about how they left their jobs in disgust because they were hired to transcode Alexa/Google recordings when it obvious that the users being transcoded hadn't asked or given permission to record audio; Transcoding recordings of drug deals, noisy sex, domestic arguments, racism, sexism....

Here's some reading if you care, it's really not hard to find. We have voluntarily walked into an Orwellian 1984 over the last decade. I wonder what future generations will think of us, if they're even allowed the right to free thought or to voice their opinions!
www.google.com/search?&q=amazon+google+facebook+microsoft+transcoding+recordings+without+user+consent
But MERICA! Better dead than red right RIGHT?


In all seriousness I doubt those laptops will be available retail in US anyway given the hostaility from government of both sides in the midst of global disaster. So yeah more choices for Chinese consumers I guess.
Posted on Reply
#5
sepheronx
Pretty impressive. Nice looking laptop and specs. Though I figure only availability will be through Amazon here and it may be overpriced in Canada.
Posted on Reply
#6
utmode
xkm1948
But MERICA! Better dead than red right RIGHT?
Better then getting body organ harvested in prison then get incinerated and family can't even say goodbye. Apple and organge.
On serious note, good to see some AMD APU based laptop.
Posted on Reply
#7
Valantar
These look quite nice for the price(s), but there are too many unanswered questions about the specs. What type of RAM, and how fast? What TDP are the APUs set to (and what heat output is the cooling designed for)? Do the displays support FreeSync (even at 60Hz this would be nice)? That 16" model is also oddly heavy considering its battery size and specs.
Posted on Reply
#8
neblogai
RAM is DDR4 2666 on all of them. Not sure if Dual channel. This, and 250 Nits brightness on more portable models means they are not ideal. It will be interesting to see at what level sustained power limit is set, to know how much gaming performance is limited.
Posted on Reply
#9
Mistral
Very nice specs and pricing, unfortunately it's Xiaomi...
Posted on Reply
#10
mechtech
I don't know if it's just me, but I would like to see more of the 3:2 aspect ratio screens like the MS Surface.
Posted on Reply
#11
Flanker
john_
I know that US members will keep talking about Chinese laptops and the bad Chinese government and stuff, but the situation with US OEMs and their love for Intel is so ridiculous and so annoying that I really hope the best in any Chinese company that will come out with a full series of Renoir laptops.
I think Intel actually made it easier for to integrate their chips into laptop designs, which is why laptop with Intel chips always reach the market faster. This happens with Chinese brands too.
Chrispy_
Meanwhile everyone in the US is buying Apple which is also a chinese laptop, and willingly providing all their data to Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Facebook and the US government - all of whom do nothing shady at any point.
If my experience with iPhones also apply to their laptops, Apple has them manufactured in sites in China, but they are definitely designed by Apple(even the manufacturing fixtures are designed by Apple), and they send staff to make sure everything on the assembly lines meet their specifications to a tee. So I wouldn't really call them Chinese laptops.
Posted on Reply
#12
Chrispy_
mechtech
I don't know if it's just me, but I would like to see more of the 3:2 aspect ratio screens like the MS Surface.
16:9 ratio matches a lot of content. All broadcast content, games, presentation slides...It's much easier to make a list of the stuff that's optimised for other aspect ratios, because pretty much everything everywhere will work at 16:9. 3:2 is just black bars on loads of things, and movies at 2,35.1 are more black bar than content on a Surface.

Taller aspect ratios are desirable for some tasks, but they do tend to make laptops narrower which cramps up the keyboard at 13.3" or lower and that extra vertical screen space translates to a deeper laptop front to back, making it less useful for using while on a train/plane/car or anywhere really where you have another seat in front of you - including a lecture hall.

If people really want more vertical real estate there are enough convertible tablets on the market to just pick one of those and work in portrait instead of landscape.

There's nothing really bad about 3:2 and 16:10 but there are several minor disadvantages and only really one advantage - making it the less popular choice and therefore more expensive because of the lower demand too.
Posted on Reply
#13
thesmokingman
These are pretty well priced especially for the ram configurations.
Posted on Reply
#14
Valantar
Chrispy_
16:9 ratio matches a lot of content. All broadcast content, games, presentation slides...It's much easier to make a list of the stuff that's optimised for other aspect ratios, because pretty much everything everywhere will work at 16:9. 3:2 is just black bars on loads of things, and movies at 2,35.1 are more black bar than content on a Surface.

Taller aspect ratios are desirable for some tasks, but they do tend to make laptops narrower which cramps up the keyboard at 13.3" or lower and that extra vertical screen space translates to a deeper laptop front to back, making it less useful for using while on a train/plane/car or anywhere really where you have another seat in front of you - including a lecture hall.

If people really want more vertical real estate there are enough convertible tablets on the market to just pick one of those and work in portrait instead of landscape.

There's nothing really bad about 3:2 and 16:10 but there are several minor disadvantages and only really one advantage - making it the less popular choice and therefore more expensive because of the lower demand too.
... You must have some weird usage habits for your laptop. Are you actually arguing that the average laptop is used more for gaming and video viewing than it is for web browsing and other desktop usage? If so, you are sorely mistaken. Sure, there are edge cases out there, but most usage is very mixed and web-heavy, which is where taller aspect ratios shine (as well as all productivity, of course). Also, it's been quite a while since I saw a game that didn't support at least 16:10, though adding 3:2 support for games that lack it would also be trivial (certainly a lot easier than ultrawide support). The goal for any thin and light laptop thus ought to be to maximise flexibility in a small size, which is where 16:9 falls flat. As for your comment about narrower laptops: the logical extension of this is obviously to increase screen sizes, not shrink laptops. Keep the width of current 16:9 size classes (13.3", 14", 15.6") but grow the displays vertically. This might increase the weight slightly (though not necessarily if it means less bezels), but will dramatically increase the usefulness of the display with very minor effects on portability. This approach also largely mitigates the "black bars on my videos" argument - sure, you now have some black bars on screen, but previously you had black bezels there instead, so what's the difference?

The prevalence of 16:9 displays is a holdover from late-2000s "multimedia laptops" back when watching video on your laptop was a novel and exciting idea. The tradeoff to everything else you do on your laptop wasn't worth it then, and certainly isn't today, but now laptop manufacturers are such in a relationship with an LCD industry that is fundamentally built on 16:9 displays. At least things are moving in the right direction these days.
Posted on Reply
#15
Chrispy_
Valantar
... You must have some weird usage habits for your laptop. Are you actually arguing that the average laptop is used more for gaming and video viewing than it is for web browsing and other desktop usage?
The prevalence of 16:9 displays is a holdover from late-2000s "multimedia laptops" back when watching video on your laptop was a novel and exciting idea.
The average laptop is a media consumption device. If you don't like it, then I'm sorry - I don't know how to candy-coat it.

Kids play games, Adults watch 16:9 TV shows, students look at presentation slides designed for a 16:9 display, 16% of all Steam users are running on Intel laptop graphics, Hundreds of millions of Microsoft Office users are defaulting to the 16:9 powerpoint slides, anyone working with any content that will be shown on a large-format display is likely targeting 16:9.

I'm not disagreeing with you about 3:2 being a better format for web browsing and text editing, but that is not even close to being the only use case, and 16:9 is in a positive feedback loop; It's the default safe option so it increases in ubiquity, which strengthens its default status.
Valantar
As for your comment about narrower laptops: the logical extension of this is obviously to increase screen sizes, not shrink laptops. Keep the width of current 16:9 size classes (13.3", 14", 15.6") but grow the displays vertically. This might increase the weight slightly (though not necessarily if it means less bezels), but will dramatically increase the usefulness of the display with very minor effects on portability.
I can't really take credit for that comment, the tray-table scenario is a common comment by ultraportable laptop reviewers - and the taller displays and deeper keyboard decks of 3:2 are usually listed as a negative point in that regard, as a counter to the increased vertical real estate positive argument. I agree that it's a minor issue but it's one that ultraportables - where this 16:10 or 3:2 ratio usually crops up - are at least taken into consideration by reviewers and the travel-heavy target audience.

Every time i step onto a plane or train you'll see a sea of laptops, phones and tablets being used and trying not to exaggerate, more than 90% of them are watching TV shows or films.
Posted on Reply
#16
Minus Infinity
So sad to see crap 16:9 screens coming out. A swing and a miss.
Posted on Reply
#17
Valantar
Chrispy_
The average laptop is a media consumption device. If you don't like it, then I'm sorry - I don't know how to candy-coat it.

Kids play games, Adults watch 16:9 TV shows, students look at presentation slides designed for a 16:9 display, 16% of all Steam users are running on Intel laptop graphics, Hundreds of millions of Microsoft Office users are defaulting to the 16:9 powerpoint slides, anyone working with any content that will be shown on a large-format display is likely targeting 16:9.

I'm not disagreeing with you about 3:2 being a better format for web browsing and text editing, but that is not even close to being the only use case, and 16:9 is in a positive feedback loop; It's the default safe option so it increases in ubiquity, which strengthens its default status.



I can't really take credit for that comment, the tray-table scenario is a common comment by ultraportable laptop reviewers - and the taller displays and deeper keyboard decks of 3:2 are usually listed as a negative point in that regard, as a counter to the increased vertical real estate positive argument. I agree that it's a minor issue but it's one that ultraportables - where this 16:10 or 3:2 ratio usually crops up - are at least taken into consideration by reviewers and the travel-heavy target audience.

Every time i step onto a plane or train you'll see a sea of laptops, phones and tablets being used and trying not to exaggerate, more than 90% of them are watching TV shows or films.
Sorry, but no. Laptops are not unitaskers. Sure, media consumption is a very popular use of them - likely even one of the most popular - but to an increasing degree people do other things while watching videos, and reading text is at the very least as "popular" as video watching - both among students and professionals. (Look into it if you want, there's been some interesting research on increased reading in recent years due to the ubiquity of the internet.) As mentioned in my post above, games work just fine in 16:10, and likely also 3:2. Adults browse the web just as much as they watch TV shows on their laptops (frankly I would expect they do the former more than the latter; they have TVs for that); students spend a lot more time reading text or writing than they do looking at presentation slides (this makes me worry about the school system where you're from); Steam gamers can - again! - play games on 16:10 or 3:2 displays; Office should enter the 21st century and adapt its slides to the display they're being viewed on (a lot of the infrastructure for this is already in place, so it shouldn't be much of a problem); anyone working with any content that will be shown on a large-format display is likely not doing so on a 13-14" ultraportable laptop for the vast majority of the work (and will need the UI of their application on-screen anyhow, so an aspect ratio not matching the end product can in fact be a productivity boost - a 16:9 image on a 16:9 display after all either leaves no room at all for UI or room all around that will be poorly utilized).

I never said web browsing and text editing is "even close to being the only use case", so please stop putting words in my mouth. I simply said that your view of how people use their laptops seems overly focused on video consumption. And while you're correct about the 16:9 positive feedback loop, that is (decade-)old news and it is thankfully(!) starting to ease off with the increase in non-16:9 displays in recent years. A lot of that is thanks to MS and the Surface line. The main reason for the feedback loop is also the LCD industry and how their equipment is designed around substrates and wafers sized for producing 16:9 display panels, making other aspect ratios less efficient and thus more expensive.

As for those ultraportable laptop reviewers: I wonder how often they make those complaints about 16:10 Macs? My guess: never. In other words, it's more a consequence of either poor PC designs or of them wanting something to nit-pick; Dell has demonstrated beautifully with their most recent XPS lineup how a 16:10 display doesn't necessitate a laptop any larger than a 16:9 display. And this argument is easily reversed: at the same height, you get a more compact laptop than with 16:9, saving weight while allowing the same vertical display area to get work done.

And I can easily counter your generalized anecdote with one of my own: every time I step onto a plane or train during work hours, I see a sea of laptops, phones and tablets being used, and the vast majority of them are used either for text-based communication, reading web content or for doing work. Outside of work hours is different, sure, as is your location and a bunch of other context. But your pulled-out-of-your-rear 90% number is pure nonsense.
Posted on Reply
#18
mechtech
Chrispy_
16:9 ratio matches a lot of content. All broadcast content, games, presentation slides...It's much easier to make a list of the stuff that's optimised for other aspect ratios, because pretty much everything everywhere will work at 16:9. 3:2 is just black bars on loads of things, and movies at 2,35.1 are more black bar than content on a Surface.

Taller aspect ratios are desirable for some tasks, but they do tend to make laptops narrower which cramps up the keyboard at 13.3" or lower and that extra vertical screen space translates to a deeper laptop front to back, making it less useful for using while on a train/plane/car or anywhere really where you have another seat in front of you - including a lecture hall.

If people really want more vertical real estate there are enough convertible tablets on the market to just pick one of those and work in portrait instead of landscape.

There's nothing really bad about 3:2 and 16:10 but there are several minor disadvantages and only really one advantage - making it the less popular choice and therefore more expensive because of the lower demand too.
Are you the same Crispy that frequented the techreport?

While I don't disagree, most of my content is autocad, and web browsing, and ms office, vertical space would be preferable for me. TVs 16:9 great, and laptops on the fence depending on size, but I think desktop monitors should have stayed 16:10 or 3:2 or something a bit more middle of the road.
Posted on Reply
#19
Chrispy_
mechtech
Are you the same Crispy that frequented the techreport?

While I don't disagree, most of my content is autocad, and web browsing, and ms office, vertical space would be preferable for me. TVs 16:9 great, and laptops on the fence depending on size, but I think desktop monitors should have stayed 16:10 or 3:2 or something a bit more middle of the road.
Guilty as charged.
I spend a lot of time in CAD software and I still miss 1600x1200 4:3. I don't miss the 23KG of cathode ray tube for a miserable 21" screen though ;)
Valantar
WALL OF TEXT
I don't get what you're arguing about. I guess I'm tapping out because you seem to think that I'm trying to convince you 16:9 is better. I've already said I agree with you about 3:2 and 16:10 being the better format. The arguments I'm making for 16:9 are not arguments trying to convince you that 16:9 is better, just reasons why 3:2 (and 16:10) have a realy uphill battle if they want to become more prevalent.

In the future, things will change. Mainstream use is media and office suites. The media industry is slowly shifting away from 16:9 and broadcast TV but it's not going to happen until the concept of television dies out. The big, popular software suites are still defaulting to 16:9 too - so that your average Joe who doesn't care or even know what an aspect ratio is will continue to spew out 16:9 content. Changing that is easier, but take Powerpoint for example, look at how little Microsoft have done to Powerpoint since the Ribbon was introduced in 2007. It's depressing!

Right now 16:9 has the momentum and a feedback loop of things keeping 16:9 at the top of the food chain. Outside of premium products where the extra cost of a non 16:9 panel can be absorbed by the much higher margins, it's not gonna happen. We can have this discussion in 10 years and if you get to say "I told you so" then I'll be pleased because despite being wrong, we'll all have gained from it. My money is on 16:9 still being the most popular format in 2030 though. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm a realist.
Posted on Reply
#20
mechtech
Chrispy_
Guilty as charged.
I spend a lot of time in CAD software and I still miss 1600x1200 4:3. I don't miss the 23KG of cathode ray tube for a miserable 21" screen though ;)
I used to frequent TR often, my handle over there was anotherengineer .
Posted on Reply
#21
Chrispy_
mechtech
I used to frequent TR often, my handle over there was anotherengineer .
Oh hello buddy. Here since 2006?!
Posted on Reply
#22
mechtech
Chrispy_
Oh hello buddy. Here since 2006?!
Ya, TR was closer to 2003, but didn't join TR forums until long after that. Too bad they fell apart.
Posted on Reply
#23
Chrispy_
mechtech
Ya, TR was closer to 2003, but didn't join TR forums until long after that. Too bad they fell apart.
Aye, TR was a bit different, but started dying when Scott left to go and work for AMD.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment