Join us on our own very special Reddit: /r/Linuxers

TUXEDO launch their smallest Linux gaming notebook with the Book XP14

By - | Views: 20,382

With a rather unassuming and plain case that doesn't give much away, the new TUXEDO Book XP14 is their smallest and lightest gaming notebook now available.

Coming with Intel Tiger Lake processors with either the Core i5-1135G7 or the Core i7-1165G7 it's backed up by their new Xe graphics, you can also upgrade it to have an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 if you want that extra bit of power for your gaming needs.

Not only does it have ample power, it also has a speedy 14" 120Hz screen along with a matte finish to help keep away as much glare as possible to be usable in various lighting conditions.

The included 49 Wh will give around 6 hours of usage according to what TUXEDO state, although that will obviously go down based on what you're doing with it. There's plenty more to appreciate with it, check out some specs:

Processor Intel Core i5-1135G7 (max. 4.2 GHz Quad-Core, 4 Cores / 8 Threads, 8 MB Cache, 28 W TDP)
or upgrade to
Intel Core i7-1165G7 (max. 4.7 GHz Quad-Core, 4 Cores / 8 Threads, 12 MB Cache, 28 W TDP)
GPU Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 | 96 Execution Units | Clockrates: 400 - 1300 (Boost) MHz
or upgrade to
NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 1650 4 GB GDDR6 VRAM | TGP: 50 watts
RAM DDR4 3200 MHz SoDIMM | Dual Channel | 2 sockets | max. 64 GB
Base configuration: 8 GB (1x 8GB) 2666MHz CL19 Samsung
Storage NVMe PCIe M.2 SSD
Base configuration: 250 GB Kingston (NVMe PCIe), up to 2TB total
Available Ports 1x Thunderbolt 4/USB-C 4.0 Gen3x2 (DisplayPort 1.4a, Power Delivery DC In*)
1x USB-C 3.2 Gen2 (DisplayPort: no, Power Delivery: no)
2x USB-A 3.2 Gen1
1x HDMI 2.0b (with HDCP)
1x 2-in-1 audio (headphone + mic)
1x RJ45 Port (LAN)
1x SD card reader
1x DC-In/power connection
6-in-1 Card reader (MMC / RSMMC / SD / mini SD / SDHC / SDXC)

As usual for this company it comes as standard with TUXEDO_OS, which is based on the latest Ubuntu release with the Budgie desktop as the default. They do also offer it with a standard Ubuntu install.

Quite an affordable notebook too starting at €865.50. For the specifications, the compact size and having full Linux support out of the box from a known company it seems like an ideal machine. TUXEDO stated in their email that shipping is expected to begin at the end of December 2020.

Check out the TUXEDO Book XP14 here.

Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Tags: Hardware
11 Likes, Who?
We do often include affiliate links to earn us some pennies. We are currently affiliated with GOG and Humble Store. See more here.
About the author -
author picture
I am the owner of GamingOnLinux. After discovering Linux back in the days of Mandrake in 2003, I constantly came back to check on the progress of Linux until Ubuntu appeared on the scene and it helped me to really love it. You can reach me easily by emailing GamingOnLinux directly.
See more from me
33 comments
Page: «3/4»
  Go to:

damarrin 13 Dec, 2020
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
Quoting: ageres
Quoting: damarrinI disagree, it’s much better than 16:9.
Better in what? In videogames you get either a truncated image, or black borders on top and bottom. All videos are 16:9 now, so black borders again. When just using an OS and applications, there isn't much significant difference between 16:9 and 16:10.

Why so aggressive? No one is taking your precious 16:9 screens away. I prefer 16:10 and that is that.
CatKiller 13 Dec, 2020
Quoting: ageresBetter in what? In videogames you get either a truncated image, or black borders on top and bottom. All videos are 16:9 now, so black borders again. When just using an OS and applications, there isn't much significant difference between 16:9 and 16:10.

16:10 is strictly bigger than 16:9. That's why it's written that way, rather than as 8:5. 1920×1200 has 120 more vertical pixels than 1920×1080; 2560×1600 has 160 more vertical pixels than 2560×1440; 3840×2400 has 240 more vertical pixels than 3840×2160.

16:9 is simply too short for monitors. It only exists for TVs as a compromise between the 1.85 and 2.39 ratios that cinemas used, and the 4:3 that TVs used. Widescreen monitors started as 16:10 so that you wouldn't have to sacrifice crucial vertical pixels for relatively unimportant horizontal pixels going from a 4:3 monitor. Then manufacturers started reusing cheap TV panels in monitors, on the grounds that consumers were more interested in price than functionality.
ageres 13 Dec, 2020
Quoting: damarrinWhy so aggressive? No one is taking your precious 16:9 screens away. I prefer 16:10 and that is that.
Why do you think it's aggression? You said 16:10 is better than 16:9, I asked why and got no answer. I'm thinking about getting a new monitor and what resolution it should have, QHD, or fancy ultrawide, or something else.
Quoting: CatKiller16:10 is strictly bigger than 16:9. That's why it's written that way, rather than as 8:5. 1920×1200 has 120 more vertical pixels than 1920×1080; 2560×1600 has 160 more vertical pixels than 2560×1440; 3840×2400 has 240 more vertical pixels than 3840×2160.
It depends on a point of view. I consider it not to be bigger, but on the contrary, narrower. If counting pixels, yes, 1920×1200 is more than 1920×1080, but isn't ultrawide 2560×1080 even more than both and actually can be used for benefit like displaying three pages of a document in full size instead of two?
But the most widespread 16:10 resolution was 1680×1050, not 1920×1200. Less than FHD in both dimensions. When I was about to buy my first desktop in 2009, I hardly could find a 16:9 FHD monitor. All shelves in stores were full of 1680×1050 only.
CatKiller 13 Dec, 2020
Quoting: ageresWhen I was about to buy my first desktop in 2009, I hardly could find a 16:9 FHD monitor. All shelves in stores were full of 1680×1050 only.
:shrug: I went from 1600×1200 to 1920×1200 when LCDs had mostly-as-good colours and viewing angles as CRTs; early LCDs were terrible at both. Cheap LCDs still are.
3zekiel 13 Dec, 2020
Quoting: omer666
Quoting: 3zekiel
Quoting: omer666Quite disappointed to see all the Linux vendors still shipping Intel-powered laptops.

First, right now, there is no real supply for AMD see CPUs (see Tuxedo AMD laptops stocks). So it's Intel or nothing for now.
Second, Tiger lake is very cool, its graphics perf are real great (way better than AMD at least, and according to new AMD APUs spec, this will continue), and single core performance is good too. So why not sell both AMD and Intel ? If you need more parallel CPU power, AMD is better of course. But that is not the general case. Graphics is usually much more limiting for most "standard" workload like browsing or gaming. And Xe does allow you to game on an APU, which is insanely cool. On the opposite, if you need to do a lot of code compilation, hw simulation etc, then AMD is better. So, best is really to have the choice.
Third, Intel continues to be a massive contributor to Linux/Open Source so not biting the hand that feeds you might be a good idea.

I agree with you, what I meant is that almost all Linux laptops I see are on Intel CPUs, so there is almost no choice at the moment. Of course I'm still eyeing what Intel is doing, but at the moment I'd rather buy AMD.

Ah I misunderstood sorry, well the issue seems to be AMD not delivering to smaller manufacturer, those who ordered the Pulse (Tuxedo's AMD laptops) received a mail not long ago saying that AMD did not deliver anywhere near as much CPUs as what was promised to them ... Guess everyone has big stock issues, but is not a very correct behaviour from AMD. So I expect that's why you see mostly Intel still. Even in non Linux laptop, high end ones are still mostly Intel, probably for similar reasons. 7nm is crowded right now, so with their own fabs Intel does have an advantage here in term of supply, 10 nm "superfin" does perform well too.
But I agree, as far as work goes, AMD CPUs would also be better for me. Guess we have to wait. On personal, I will take Intel for light gaming, but I would prefer a magnesium chassis with a more prenium feel than this one... We're almost there Tuxedo, now, make an Infity book version of this laptop, without the graphics card, but with the same battery as 14" infinity book and Xe 25w TGP, and I'll pull the trigger.
Bingo 13 Dec, 2020
Quoting: ageresIt depends on a point of view. I consider it not to be bigger, but on the contrary, narrower. If counting pixels, yes, 1920×1200 is more than 1920×1080, but isn't ultrawide 2560×1080 even more than both and actually can be used for benefit like displaying three pages of a document in full size instead of two?
But the most widespread 16:10 resolution was 1680×1050, not 1920×1200. Less than FHD in both dimensions. When I was about to buy my first desktop in 2009, I hardly could find a 16:9 FHD monitor. All shelves in stores were full of 1680×1050 only.

Well I remember the times when the choice was between 1280x800 and 1280x720. Those 80 pixels made quite a difference. Wouldn't surprise me if 1280x800 was the most widespread in total.

On a personal note, I remember replacing a 1680x1050 monitor with a 1920x1080 monitor. I could never get used to it and kept feeling the picture was too squeezed. My primary use-case is however also applications which support resolutions, such as browsers, text editors and games. The x1080 monitor is fine as a secondary one though.
ageres 13 Dec, 2020
Quoting: BingoWell I remember the times when the choice was between 1280x800 and 1280x720. Those 80 pixels made quite a difference. Wouldn't surprise me if 1280x800 was the most widespread in total.
I'm not sure if 1280×800 ever was widespread on desktop PCs. AFAIR, after 5:4 1280×1024 monitors (yet another stupid ratio), 1680×1050 appeared. There were laptops with 1280×800 resolution, and I had one. So, for myself display resolutions evolved as 4:3 → 16:10 → 16:9, thus I believe 16:10 is obsolete. I still don't understand how 80-120 pixels would make a dramatic difference that outweighs black bars or cut borders with 16:9 content. It's just a line of text or two, isn't it?
CatKiller 13 Dec, 2020
Quoting: ageresIt's just a line of text or two, isn't it?

It's an extra 11% of vertical space.

The black bars that you're concerned about: it's exactly that much.


Last edited by CatKiller on 13 December 2020 at 4:28 pm UTC
iiari 13 Dec, 2020
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
Quoting: CatKiller
Quoting: ageresIt's just a line of text or two, isn't it?

It's an extra 11% of vertical space.

The black bars that you're concerned about: it's exactly that much.
I personally love 3:2 even better than 16:10, but those are rare beasts overall, and the few that exist have quirks with Linux...
Jahimself 13 Dec, 2020
QuoteI wish 16:10 screens would come back. :-(

Why? It's the worst ratio ever. I'm glad that it died.

It's actually the best ratio for computer use. It is designed to have more space and all 16/10 have better dot pitch than 16/9 which mean nicer image. I can understand that you don't like this aspect ratio, but i think it's because you got used to 16/9 and because for intance you had a 16/10 19"screen, and you replaced it with a 24" 16/9 so it seems a lot more confortabkle, but the same 24 inch in 16/10 is even more confotable, the fact that you get heigh is perfet for any kind of work. Writing text or coding for instance is always set verticaly, even when you browse the web on 16/9 half of the screen is lost, whereas on 16/10 it looks less stupid. It is also better for the movie imo.

Have something very large like 16/9 is only good for car or sim game. Everytime i see a 16/9 i'm like it is not high enough ,and way too large, feeling too low. Especially on computer, because this ratio comes from TV and gaming on console. But on pc you are close to your computer, and it makes no sens to have a large screen, because you loose a lot of focus in fps, the larger it is the more effort you have to provide with your eyes and brain, and you eyes fatigue way quicker. Originaly computer for work were a square not a rectangle, and it was perfect outside of the fact they were very heavy and very big.

Back in the 90' you already had resolution similar or biger than 1440p on some basic 19" screen which make a dot pitch better than 4k on a 27".

By the way every screen manufacturer create new model of every 2 years or 3 years, of 16/10 because they are perfect for work. And most of the time they also have IPS panel which looks a lot better than so washed colors on classic TN panels.

I have done 16/10 19"==> 24" 16/9 and 24" 16/10, I will never come back to this non natural 16/9


Last edited by Jahimself on 13 December 2020 at 8:00 pm UTC
While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on:

Patreon, Liberapay or PayPal Donation.

We have no adverts, no paywalls, no timed exclusive articles. Just good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!

You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
Login / Register

Or login with...
Sign in with Steam Sign in with Twitter Sign in with Google
Social logins require cookies to stay logged in.

Livestreams & Videos
Community Livestreams
Latest Forum Posts