I'll point out that while the article touts its "blazing-fast Intel Core-i7", the likely reason that they chose an i7 is not that it is blazing-fast, but becaus

I'll point out that while the article touts its "blazing-fast Intel Core-i7", the likely reason that they chose an i7 is not that it is blazing-fast, but because currently, generally speaking[1], the i7 line is the only one that includes IRIS graphics, which is an IGP that is pedestrian by the standards of discreet GPUs, but quite impressive in terms of integrated graphics solutions. While all of the i7 processors that contain IRIS graphics are very fast from a compute perspective, that's not likely the reason they chose Intel's premium line. That is to say, the i7 is still a compromise in performance, but has the great advantage of having pretty good graphics (which they need for high def video streaming) without requiring a huge discreet GPU, which in turn allows for a very small overall package. I'm not saying that it's a bad tradeoff, actually I recently bought a laptop that makes this exact tradeoff, but I think that it's a little bit intentionally disingenuous to tout its top end CPU performance when it's likely that this was only a secondary or tertiary factor for choosing this CPU. I know it's marketing, and of course they're going to put i7 on the front of the tin because it's associated with premium-ness. Just pointing out why in this case it's kinda BS. [1] Apple managed to convince Intel to integrate IRIS graphics into i5 branded processors for the late-2013 Macbook Pros, but it's the only place that I've seen non i7 line processors with IRIS.