
LG has updated its Gram lineup of ultraslim laptops at the ongoing CES 2023. It is not just another refresh — the 2023 lineup brings two new entries: LG Gram Ultraslim and the Gram Style. So, let’s dive into the details of the new LG Gram lineup of ultraslim laptops (2023).
LG Gram 2023 Lineup Overview:
The latest lineup of the LG Gram lineup brings two new models to the already existing Gram and Gram 2-in-1 models. All the new laptops by LG are powered by the 13th Gen Intel “Raptor Lake” mobile processors in form factors ranging from 14” to 17”. The regular LG Gram even brings the option of discrete graphics. The 2023 LG Gram lineup brings Thunderbolt 4, HDMI, and Dolby Atmos audio.
LG Gram Style
The standout LG laptop of this year is undoubtedly the new Gram Style. It embodies the ultraslim nature of the Gram lineup while adding a bit of flair of its own to justify its name. It is not just made up of a single block of magnesium, LG has integrated glass into the design of the new Gram Style. As result, the laptop can dynamically switch its color irrespective of any shiny color option you opt for.
This glow extends to the keyboard deck inside too. The palm rest is one large smooth surface with no signs of a touchpad, except for the lights shining on the two side lights. These light up when you interact with the Dell XPS 13 Plus-like touchpad. LG has even integrated a haptic on the touchpad for satisfying feedback.

Another highlight of the LG Gram Style is its “Anti-Glare Low Reflection” display. Each LG Gram Style sport a 16:10 OLED with 400 nits of brightness. You can choose between a 16-inch model with a 120Hz refresh rate or a smaller 14-inch model that refreshes at a modest 90Hz rate. The two models also pack different-sized batteries—72Wh on the 14-inch and 80Wh on the 16-inch.
LG Gram Style Specifications:
| Gram Style 16 (16Z90RS) | Gram Style 16 (14Z90RS) | |
| Dimension | 355.1 x 241.3 x 15.9mm | 311.6 x 213.9 x 15.9mm |
| Weight | 1,230 grams | 999 grams |
| Durability | MIL-STD-810H | |
| Display Size | 16-inch | 14-inch |
| Display | WQXGA+ (3,200 x 2,000) OLED | |
| Refresh Rate | 120Hz | 90Hz |
| Typical Brightness | 400 nits | |
| CPU | 13th Gen Intel “Raptor Lake” processors | |
| GPU | Intel Iris Xe (integrated) | |
| Memory | 8/16/32GB LPDDR5 RAM | |
| Storage | 256/512GB/1TB Gen 4 NVMe | |
| Webcam | FHD camera with IR | |
| Speakers | 2x 3.0W | 2x 2.0W |
| I/O ports | 2x Thunderbolt 4, 1x USB 3.1, Micro SD, H/P | |
| Battery | 80Wh | 72Wh |
You might also like:
- Acer Swift 3 (2022) with QHD display, 12th Gen Intel chip now in Nepal
- Poco X5 Pro to launch this month with Snapdragon 778G, 108MP Camera
- OnePlus 10T with Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1 now available for pre-booking in Nepal
LG Gram Ultraslim
Next is the new LG Gram Ultraslim, the thinnest laptop in the lineup’s history—coming in between 10.99 – 12.55mm. Weighing in at 998 grams, it is also the lightest Gram in the new lineup— but not by a large margin. Fueling it is a 60Whr battery—the smallest in the new lineup, but that should not be a surprise given by sensitive LG has been for the weight of this laptop
Like the LG Gram Style discussed above, the new Gram Ultraslim also packs Intel’s latest laptop processors and has a military-grade certification. It comes in a single 15.6-inch OLED model with an FHD resolution and 60Hz refresh being nothing special to write home about.

| Gram Ultraslim (15Z90RT) | |
| Dimension | 356.0 x 227.45 x 10.99 – 12.55 |
| Weight | 998 grams |
| Durability | MIL-STD-810H |
| Display Size | 15.6-inch |
| Display | FHD (1,920 x 1,080) OLED |
| Refresh Rate | 60Hz |
| Typical Brightness | 400 nit |
| CPU | 13th Gen Intel “Raptor Lake” processors |
| GPU | Intel Iris Xe (integrated) |
| Memory | 8/16/32GB LPDDR5 RAM |
| Storage | 256/512GB/1TB Gen 4 NVMe |
| Webcam | FHD camera with IR |
| Speakers | 2x 2.0W |
| I/O ports | 2x Type-C (Thunderbolt 4, PD), 1x Type-C (PD), H/P |
| Battery | 60Wh |
The regular LG Gram models
In addition to the Gram Style and Gram UltraSlim, LG has refreshed the regular Gram and Gram 2-in-1 laptops. The 2-in-1 model is available in 16-inch and 14-inch models— whereas the regular Gram is available additional 15” and 17-inch models. They are powered by the 13th Gen Intel Core processors, and LG even offers dGPU variants with GeForce RTX 3050 on the 17” and 16” LG Gram. These two laptops also offer variable refresh rates ranging from 31Hz to 144Hz.

| Gram 17 (17Z90R) | Gram 16 (16Z90R) | Gram 15 (15Z90R) | Gram 14 (14Z90R) | |
| Dimension | 378.8 x 258.8 x 17.8mm | 355.1 x 242.3 x 16.8mm | 356.1 x 222.9 x 17.4mm | 312 x 213.9 x 16.8mm |
| Weight | 1,350g (iGPU)/1,450g (dGPU) | 1,199g (iGPU)/1,299g (dGPU)
|
1,140g | 999g |
| Durability | MIL-STD-810H | |||
| Display Size | 17” | 16” | 15.6” | 14” |
| Display | WQXGA (2,560 x 1,600) IPS | FHD (1,920 x 1080) IPS | WUXGA (1,920 x 1,200) IPS | |
| Refresh Rate | 31-144Hz (VRR), 60Hz normal) | 60Hz | ||
| Typical Brightness | 400 nits (VRR) | 350 nit | ||
| CPU | 13th Gen Intel “Raptor Lake” processors | |||
| GPU | Intel Iris Xe (integrated) | |||
| Memory | 8/16/32GB LPDDR5 RAM | |||
| Storage | 256/512GB/1TB Gen 4 NVMe | |||
| Webcam | FHD camera with IR | |||
| Speakers | 2x 2.0 (iGPU) / 2x 3.0W (dGPU) | 2x 1.5W | ||
| I/O ports | 2x Thunderbolt 4, 1x HDMI, 2x USB 3.1, Micro SD, H/P | |||
| Battery | 80Wh (iGPU) / 90Wh (dGPU) | 80Wh | 72Wh | |
LG Gram 2023 Lineup Price and Availability
While LG has not confirmed the pricing yet, the new Gram laptops. (2022) will start shipping to the US in February. We will update this article with the official price and availability if any laptops from the 2023 lineup of LG Gram (Gram, Gram 2-in-1, Gram Ultraslim, Gram Style) make their way to Nepal.





![Best Gaming Laptops in Nepal Under Rs. 200,000 (रु 2 Lakhs) [2025] Best gaming lapotp under 2 lakhs Nepal Feb 2025](https://cdn.gadgetbytenepal.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Best-Gaming-Laptops-Under-2-Lakh-Nepal-Feb-2025-Update.jpg)
![Best Gaming Laptops in Nepal Under Rs. 120,000 (रु 1.2 Lakhs) [2025] Best Budget Gaming Laptops Under Rs 120000 in Nepal 2025 Update](https://cdn.gadgetbytenepal.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Best-Budget-Gaming-Laptops-Under-Rs-120000-in-Nepal-2024-Update.jpg)
![Best Gaming Laptops in Nepal Under Rs. 150,000 (रु 1.5 Lakhs) [2025] Best gaming laptops under 150k November 2024](https://cdn.gadgetbytenepal.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Best-gaming-laptops-under-150k-November-2024.jpg)

![Best Laptops Under Rs. 80,000 in Nepal [2025] Best Laptops Under 80,000 in Nepal March 2025 Update](https://cdn.gadgetbytenepal.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Best-Laptops-Under-80000-in-Nepal-March-2025-Update.jpg)
![Best Mobile Phones Under Rs. 15,000 in Nepal [Updated 2025] Best Phones Under 15000 in Nepal 2024 Budget Smartphones Cheap Affordable](https://cdn.gadgetbytenepal.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Best-Phones-Under-15000-in-Nepal-2024.jpg)
![Best Mobile Phones Under Rs. 20,000 in Nepal [Updated] Best Mobile Phones Under NPR 20000 in Nepal 2023 Updated Samsung Xiaomi Redmi POCO Realme Narzo Benco](https://cdn.gadgetbytenepal.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Best-Phones-Under-20000-in-Nepal-2024.jpg)
![Best Mobile Phones Under Rs. 30,000 in Nepal [Updated 2025] Best Phones Under 30000 in Nepal](https://cdn.gadgetbytenepal.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Best-Phones-Under-30000-in-Nepal.jpg)
![Best Mobile Phones Under Rs. 40,000 in Nepal [Updated 2025] Best Phones Under 40000 in Nepal 2025](https://cdn.gadgetbytenepal.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Best-Phones-Under-40000-in-Nepal-2025.jpg)
![Best Mobile Phones Under Rs. 50,000 in Nepal [Updated 2025] Best Phones Under 50000 in Nepal](https://cdn.gadgetbytenepal.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Best-Phones-Under-50000-in-Nepal.jpg)
![Best Flagship Smartphones To Buy In Nepal [Updated] Like Keynesianism of any variety, green Keynesianism requires a vigorous state. Its political limits lie here, for the liberal-democratic state—at least as it currently exists—is entirely unlikely to create a green Keynesianism, at least one adequate to the problems we face. And were it capable, it would take too long. Green Keynesianism is thus a contradiction on political grounds; one with great consequences. Perhaps Keynesianism’s greatest flaw is its inability to even imagine that the work required might be done without the state, because it assumes a priori that the market is the state’s only “outside. ”52 For Keynesians (and perhaps for all liberals), the state and market fill all the space of the social; they cannot conceive of a world in which there are multiple social fields, other spaces in which organizational or allocative work is possible. This conceptual limit is perfectly coextensive with elite common sense: all important action happens in the realm of the state or the market, and it is a zero-sum game (this is why liberals accuse state-backed investment of “crowding out” private capital—from their perspective, there is nothing else out there to be pushed aside). Consequently, since the market has already demonstrated its inadequacy to the task, the state is an existential sine qua non. For all the libertarian babble of “free markets, ” there is no elite social group in the world that wants the state to disappear. On the contrary, the capture of the state is almost always a defining characteristic of elite status. This helps explain why Keynesianism—green or otherwise—is so attractive in moments of crisis, and why other options seem so utopian, futile, or doomed. Keynesianism in any one nation assumes and requires a sovereign state monopolizing both the legitimate use of violence and the legitimate allocation of resources within its territory. But planetary warming exposes the territorial nation-state as insufficient to address the crisis. With the surface of the globe covered in a chaotic and lumpy arrangement of adjacent but supposedly distinct and non-overlapping parcels, each of which has some capacity to contribute to everyone else’s calamity, it is clear to global elites that no individual or subgroup of contemporary states are up to the task. What is obviously necessary is a means of governance that is not beholden to modern state sovereignty, at the same time that this necessity is denied by some of those very sovereign states. For a green Keynesian solution to the problem of catastrophic climate change, the problem of the state resolves itself only in its seemingly inescapable lack of resolution. The regulatory and decision-making role of the state, not to mention the form it takes, is completely and utterly indeterminate. The scale of the problems is so great, it seems impossible to confront them without the state, but it seems just as impossible that the state as currently constituted is going to get the job done. We face a situation in which there is, under current geopolitical and geoeconomic arrangements, no right answer. To restate the political paradox more sharply: to address its contradictions— including the ecological contradiction that capital’s growth is destroying the planet—capitalism needs a planetary manager, a Keynesian world state. But elites have proven reluctant to build it, and it appears unlikely to miraculously realize itself. So, the only apparent capitalist solution to climate change is presently impossible; the only even marginally possible green Keynesianism that could save us is still predicated upon the territorial nation-state. The necessary, logical corollary is to scale all the way up: in the face of planetary climate change, the success of green Keynesian programs in any one nation depends upon the commitment of all other nations. Hence the motivation to create a kind of global Green New Deal, a “Green Bretton Woods, ” which is clearly the idealized objective of liberal and progressive forces at every COP from Copenhagen to Paris (or wherever we next invest our hopes). 53 This planetary Keynesianism is supposed to diminish the otherwise “inevitable” realpolitik that corrupts an aggregation of merely domestic arrangements by limiting the free rider or collective action problems associated with the market failure that plagues the “quintessential case of global commons. ” As Dani Rodrik puts it, “absent cosmopolitan considerations, each nation’s optimal strategy would be to emit freely and to free-ride on the carbon controls of other countries” —the “tragedy of the commons” at a planetary scale. 54 Because Keynesianism is constructed on the assumption that self-interest and public interest can only be reconciled by the state, a pragmatic, liberal realism would look for an answer in a higher power, one that could suppress or at least contain the urge to free ride. But because of its irreducibly sovereign basis, no green Keynesian program can imagine anything other than a cosmopolitan basis for doing so, a basis which violates its own foundation in state-based sovereign autonomy. It cannot propose to construct a mechanism with a “self-interest” in planetary “ecological stimulus”55 because that mechanism or institution would obviously require coercive power over the national component parts of the planet in which its power is “interested. ” The logical conclusion of this line of thought is as clear as it is significant. A transnational Keynesianism can only be predicated on the consolidation of a transnational variation on the sovereign subject without which Keynesianism is inconceivable. A planetary green Keynesianism, the only kind that might have a hope of confronting the problem in its scale and magnitude, is thus forced down one of two planetary paths—both of which lead, ultimately, to the same destination. The first path involves the construction of a consensual global agreement in which all parties find, if not something good, at least something better than the status quo. As Stiglitz says, “effective action has to be global; but given the deficiencies in the current system of global governance, action adequate to what needs to be done has yet to be taken. ”56 Thus the contortions required by the climate treaty planners to make such an agreement imaginable, let alone workable; a plan that is essential is impossible—yet something must be done. 57 This is why the proposals always seem so formulaic and empty, and virtually never involve substantive targets or means and timelines for implementation. 58 The diagnosis of the problem continually takes us to the edge of the chasm between what we know is necessary and the common sense judgment that it is totally impossible. So, to delay acknowledging that the impossible is necessary, “we” gather together at the precipice and list to each other all the qualities of a geopolitics that would make the chasm disappear. One recent assessment by influential US economists, for example, tells us that any effective global agreement will have to involve all of the following: global cooperation, adequate incentives for participation and compliance, equitability, cost-effectiveness, consistency with the international regime, verifiability, practicality, and realism. 59 The very conditions these thought experiments impose on the structure of agreements (a paradoxical response to a problem associated with realpolitik) make such proposals effectively unrealizable. It is like designing a bridge—a universalist, participatory, climate ethics that crosses the chasm of the “world’s biggest collective action problem” to a global village on the other side—that we know will never be able to support our weight. From Kyoto to Paris, we are left stranded; hearts filled with hope, feet on crumbling soil. We therefore come face to face with the cruel specter of the second possible path: the emergence of one nation-state, or a small set of nation-states, that arrogate to themselves the impossible institutional capacities that come with an interest in supranational “ecological stimulus. ” This is a Climate Leviathan that can bear the burdens required of a planetary Keynesian subject, capable of coordinating investment, distributing productive and destructive capacity, and managing free riders. The differences between the results of these two sovereignties, if any, is unclear. Both could fill the role of Leviathan. And, to the extent that it is reasonable to expect war as the solution for a world in which isolated nation- states pursue their struggles against an uneven wave of environmental disasters, even domestic green Keynesianisms lead here. We must not forget that Keynesianism was a product of world war and depended deeply upon it. One way or another, however reluctantly, the logic of capital in the Anthropocene points toward planetary sovereignty. We must therefore consider the conditions for its potential emergence.](https://cdn.gadgetbytenepal.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Best-Flagship-Phones-who-is-it-ft.jpg)