Samsung Chromebook Pro Powered by Rockchip RK3399 SoC to Sell for $499

Orange Pi Development Boards

Considering Linux kernel commits related to RK3399 processor almost always involves developers with a chromium.org email address, beside rock-chip.com ones, we had to expect a Rockchip RK3399 based Chromebook sooner or later, and based on various leaks, Samsung Chromebook Pro appears to be one the RK3399 Chromebooks to come to market very soon.

samsung-chromebook-proWe’ll see some of the key features and pictures, and technical details on websites such as Adorama, so we can have a pretty good idea of Chromebook Pro OP1 / 513C24I specifications, even though Samsung and Google have yet to officially launch the device:

  • SoC – Hexa core processor with 2x ARM Cortex A72 cores @ up to 2.0 GHz, 4x ARM Cortex A53 cores (Which has to be Rockchip RK3399 SoC, or a special RK3399-C specific to Chromebooks)
  • System Memory – 4 GB LPDDR3 RAM
  • Storage – 32 GB eMMC Flash Storage
  • Display – 360°-rotatable 12.3” LED touchscreen display;  2,400 x 1,600 resolution; 400 nits brightness
  • Connectivity – Wi-Fi 802.11 b/g/n/ac WiFi, Bluetooth 4.0
  • Camera – 1x front-facing webcam
  • USB – 2x USB type C ports
  • Misc – Power and volume buttons, digital pen
  • Battery – Up to 10 hours of battery usage; 70% battery capacity retention expected after 3 years
  • Dimensions – 280 x 221 x 12.9 to 13.9 thickness (All metal body)
  • Weight – 1.08 kg

Chromebook Pro will run the latest version of Chrome OS, include Google Play Store to let you use Android apps, as well as “value added software”, such as a one-year subscription to AirDroid browser-based web app service to easily access files from any of your devices.

samsung-chromebook-pro-pen

It’s also the first Chromebook that I’m aware of coming with digital pen input to interact with the touchscreen. Samsung Chromebook Pro won’t be the first ARM Cortex A72 Chromebook to be launched, as Acer Chromebook R13 was already launched with a Mediatek processor for $399 and up. Adorama list Chromebook Pro OP1 for $499, and Chrome Unboxed also noticed a now-deleted B&H listing for Chromebook Pro (referred to Kevin to the codebase) going for the same price, and allegedly starting to ship on October 24th.

Via Liliputing

19
Leave a Reply

avatar
18 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
3 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
14 Comment authors
cortex-a72theburgerisgoodGrodudjablu Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Peter Bauer
Guest

If Google continues to ignore requests for easy debugging on Chromebooks then the Asus Flip C100 is my last chromebook 🙁
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=623377#c1

Peter Bauer
Guest

Which company produces the RK3399 based FenMI TV box ? Is pre-order possible ?
https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/2016hkfair?source=feed_text&story_id=570335976492990

Sander
Guest
Sander

Cool Chromebook, … but 499 USD?! Is it any better than my HP Stream 13 (with Intel Celeron N3050), which is now 199 Euro.

blu
Guest
blu

Hey, the 4GB of RAM now looks like a trend on aarch64 chromebooks!
http://www.cnx-software.com/2016/09/01/acer-chromebook-r13-is-powered-by-mediatek-mt8173-64-bit-arm-processor/

At long friggin last!

davidlt
Guest
davidlt

It has two TypeC USBs, one on each side. IIRC the silicon supports LPDDR4. Do they really put LPDDR3?

blue ice
Guest
blue ice

I’ll buy it if someone can get Ubuntu running on it

JM
Guest
JM

Will it explode?

Eversor
Guest
Eversor

cnxsoft :
@Sander
It should be better with a slightly faster processor, much higher screen resolution, more memory, 802.11ac, etc… I’m not sure this justify the large price difference however. You’d have to be happy with Chrome OS too, unless Ubuntu can be installed too.

Double A72 is Pentium U territory, it will be much faster than even a quad core Braswell. Only lacking is not many optimizations for ARM vs x86, but shouldn’t be ver noticeable on most applications.

Hank
Guest
Hank

Looking forward to competition to Intel for a desktop OS.

Peter Bauer
Guest

Running Debian or Ubuntu on the RK3399 based Chromebook pro from Samsung should be possible like with the Asus Flip C100, but it may take some time until David Schneider finds time to support this new model:
http://www.bitkistl.com/2016/06/chromebook-flip-c100-user-guide.html
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreboot-dev/2016-08/msg00021.html
https://github.com/dnschneid/crouton/wiki
https://github.com/dnschneid

noone
Guest
noone

Does anyone know what process RK3399 is on? For $500 it best be at most 16nm.

Also for that price the display better be an accurate, wide-gamut, proper RGB-striped OLED.

blu
Guest
blu

@noone
28nm, as par the course. That’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockchip after all, not samsung/qualcomm/huawei.

dja
Guest
dja

(or a RK3399-C specific to Chromebooks)…

As fancy and nice looking it is, closed hardware/bios makes chromebooks a waste of time and money.

Grodu
Guest
Grodu

@Sander
* Twice your RAM
* A touch screen
* 360° rotation for screen
* Wacom stylus
* More than probably better display quality (HP Stream 13 uses a very lowend display)
* Better resolution
* A really more powerfull processor and I don’t speak about power efficency, that can be compared with celeron.
* A lighter and thiner formfactor (look at the big bezel of the HP)
* No Microsoft bloatware preloaded
* etc…

theburgerisgood
Guest
theburgerisgood

a garbage close source cpu along the lines of mediatek avoid both like the plague ! both mediatek and this garbage rockchip are highly not optimized ! a low end samsung exynos or qualcom run circle around this garbage ! both mediatek and rockchip cost oem less the 20$ so yeah pass !

Peter Bauer
Guest

Hi the burgis…
Why is Rockchip garbage ? Any arguments ? Are you working for qualcom ?

cortex-a72
Guest
cortex-a72

@Grodu, honestly, this chromewhateverOS from the Corporation of Good(C) only exists 1) because Microsoft (stupidly) doesn’t wish to release an _open_ (open as in the x86 realm, not as in beer or in Stallman feet) Windows on arm, well, they probably don’t wish to upset Intel, and 2) it exists only as linux/FreeDOS-like stub on budget PCs until users install Windows, inbetween linux nerds, in this case, the only ones interested in this mediocrity, install finally (if they got lucky) their ubuntu “bloatware”. 😉 So your last 2 points sound funny.
Otherwise all this “brilliant” idea from the Corporation of Good is a one big joke. This is about a pretension of software which that thing is, but speaking of the hardware, I wish more vendors would make low power arm laptops. Even if it doesn’t “shine” performance wise nor is of the best quality. You know, there are people, opposite to apple fanboys ready to pay pay pay for overpriced iBricks, those wanting to be a low budget spending, still wishing to have a mobile PC, low power consumption, still usable for general puproses… But again, Microsoft needs to let arm Windows a go. We both know, lacking Windows on such devices is a huge minus, and is the ultimate reason why arm laptops cannot really happen. I guess, Arm ltd and their licensees, combined, might be more sounding in convincing MS it’s worth of it, against Intel alone. It won’t hurt Intel, but will bring a diversity and more power saving hardware which are good.