• expired

Intel NUC M15 EVO 15.6" FHD Touch, i7-1165G7, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD $1,059.30 + Delivery (Free C&C) @ Bing Lee

110
CR10
This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.

Coupled with the Cashreward cash back, it seems a good price, $1,059.30 - $96.30 cash back = $963.

Delivery to Sydey metro area is $10. I'm not sure delivery charge for other areas.

Specifications
CPU: Intel Core i7-1165G7
RAM: 16GB
Integrated Graphics: Intel Iris Xe Graphics
SSD: 512GB
Screen Size (Inches): 15.6"
Screen Resolution: 1080p FHD 1920 x 1080
Screen Panel Type: IPS
Screen Refresh Rate (Hz): 60Hz
Touch Screen: Yes
USB Type-C: 2
USB Type-C Power Delivery Support: Yes
USB Type-C DisplayPort Support: Yes
USB Type-C Thunderbolt 4 Support: Yes
USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-A: 2
HDMI: 1x HDMI 2.0b
WLAN (WiFi): 802.11ax
Webcam: 720p HD IR Webcam
Audio In/Out Type: Combined 3.5mm
Backlit Keyboard LED: Yes
Colour: Shadow Grey
Weight (kg): 1.65kg

Original Coupon Deal

Related Stores

Bing Lee
Bing Lee

closed Comments

  • -5

    Eh Idk, 1k for a laptop with very bad integrated graphics seems kinda overkill. I've seen better value intel nuc than this.

    For the same price u can get one like this which has a gtx 1650 and a Ryzen 5-4600H that both run better than the specs in this laptop.

    • +5

      LMAO there's no comparison here

      • How come

        • +5

          The AUS gaming laptop is heavier, has poorer battery life, 8gb ram and the gtx 1650 is quite old.

          Intel NUC is geared towards being portable, has a good battery life and comes with 16gb ram.

          They are in different categories

          • -2

            @thriftysach: Thats obvious. My main point was there are much better value portable laptops, even intel nucs.

    • +4

      "Run better" is rather subjective. I imagine you're referring primarily to gaming. The issue for me is that gaming performance is not what I need in a laptop. I'd much prefer 16GB of RAM and a better battery.

      Also, I personally find that a lot of gaming laptops just look ugly (potentially controversial opinion).

      • -1

        Ur correct, it is. I should have stated I was talking specifically about performance mostly. I was still pointing out that u can find a much better deal if u want portable, in terms of value this isn't exactly great with respect to op for posting.

        • +3

          You do have a point in that if value is defined in terms of gaming performance, then no, you would not buy an Intel M15 NUC laptop. As you said, there are many other options (e.g. pretty much any budget gaming laptop) that would run circles around the M15.

          However, value is dependent on the use case of the laptop.

    • +1

      Intel NUC is a premium non-gaming laptop. Price is fair for the build quality. If you’re after a gaming laptop then it’s not for you.
      The linked laptop is a budget gaming laptop. It will beat the NUC in performance but pretty much everything else will be inferior

  • +5

    Just as a note for anyone considering this, the build quality really is brilliant. It feels solid and durable without being heavy. The performance is very, very good, and most importantly it doesn't come with vendor preloaded junk!! with a device like this, honestly wouldn't bother with other OEM's…

    • Nice to hear! It looks like it would feel like holding a Mac, quality wise. How long is the battery lasting you? And what’s your use case?

      • +3

        It's rated at 16hrs, but I never had it off charge for more than 8hrs. My case is productivity / youtube / Facey and some older games. It's a great laptop for the price and I'm happy I got it. I agree with incipient on his comment, but to me it was a bit heavier than expected. The thing is solid but, so I can handle the slightly heavier lappy (it's ~1.6kg)

        Edit: At 8hrs I have between 40-60% of battery left and I use the balance mode in windows (likely would get a lot better battery with power savings)

        • +2

          Thanks for letting me know, much appreciated. 40-60% after 8 hours of normal usage seems quite good to me!

Login or Join to leave a comment