"IMHO you shouldn't do it in a grid, it's confusing as a graphic and in some cases results in wrong representation of the data (which every graphical representation of data should avoid), for example, outliers can be too close to "normal" data, distance between two points is not representative of actual variables variation (sorry for alliteration), overlapping points seem to be different and you can't infer a drive price/cost to be better than other unless they share one coordinate(the worst, because that's the purpose of the graphic)
I'd say your points need to be smaller or you need to use less points in order to represent your data correctly.(...)"
I would add this time that the chart screen size vs price doesn't make sense to me. I would rather have a compound metric for performance/value in lieu of screen size. This would be made according to "weights" attributed by the user against the several aspects of a laptop, so, for me, screen resolution and memory would be the most valued, followed by HD capacity.
I'm trying to give constructive criticism here, because I believe you have something really good that needs some polishing. The fact that you made this in its current state is already applause worthy. It can be better but it already provides a very good service.