Windows 10X is coming to laptops

[LeeW]

A student that uses google office won't care what CPU he or she has. But they will care about battery life. And that student will one day be in workforce, he will want to use a device that hes familiar with.

Indeed, I don't think anyone would argue that battery life is important, an all-day battery has been a want for a long time especially on laptops, surface devices, and others. That said, battery life for the majority of businesses will rarely sit above cost per unit.

We are not going to see people who had no interest in Apple yesterday, flooding over today because of battery life.

As I have said often, Apple and M1 are not going to cause any material shift in the rest of the market. Apple certainly has the opportunity to grow, it always has but they can't support the corporate market (wouldn't want Apple anyway) and there is a significant segment of gamers and those who simply wouldn't consider Apple so their growth has limits.

So it always comes back to intel/AMD and what their response is. ARM in the windows scene would be as much of a game-changer as it has been to Apple but I am sure we all know that is distant, very distant.

I suspect the next marker is still going to be Alder Lake, whilst many are comparing it to the M1 it's not really the case. Remember that intel does not have to compete with Apple as their chips will never be available outside of Apple devices, they are competing with AMD.

Not convinced Intel will pull off a strong enough chip to be fair, AMD may get their first in respect of maintaining strong performance and providing better battery life. Frankly, I don't care which one does it as long as one of them gets there fairly soon.

 

[c0ppo]

Not convinced Intel will pull off a strong enough chip to be fair, AMD may get their first in respect of maintaining strong performance and providing better battery life. Frankly, I don't care which one does it as long as one of them gets there fairly soon.

I also don't care who makes chips, I just want the best one for the money I'm willing to spend.
Ryzen 4000 mobile crushes Intel, 5000 series is even better. I love thinkpads, I really do. But I won't purchase another without Ryzen. I'm not willing to spend more money on lousier chip (Intel).

In this year I hope more OEMs are gonna wake up and start using AMD. Asus is doing it, Lenovo on some of their mid range models as well. But HP/Lenovo/Dell need to start using AMD in their flagship models as well. Intel has been asleep for many years now. AMD caught up, and is even way better now.

 

[maflynn]

AMD caught up, and is even way better now.

In the desktop arena, I agree, but with AMD just announcing their mobile chips, we may be waiting for another year before we see more makers embracing the mobile variant for their laptops.


Big Blue is stuck in a morass that seems unthinkable 5 years ago, I can't even blame their Tick/Tock strategy, they've been on 14nm far too long.

Still, I think for the short term people will continue to stick with Intel

 

[c0ppo]

Still, I think for the short term people will continue to stick with Intel

I agree. But only because OEMs aren't embracing AMD.

In the desktop arena, I agree, but with AMD just announcing their mobile chips, we may be waiting for another year before we see more makers embracing the mobile variant for their laptops.

Here we will disagree. AMD 4000 series chips are simply better than Intel in almost all categories. For example, i9 10XXX chips are falling behind even 4000 series. i9 gets way hotter, uses way more TDP and battery life than AMD, all while AMD is performing better.

My friend from work uses g14. That thing is a beast when compared to my X1E 2nd gen. In a smaller package he gets way better battery life, less noise and under load g14 doesn't heat as much as x1e does, even though his g14 has 2060 GPU.

But CPU isn't the only part of laptop. g14 has way worse screen for example.
But if I had a choice between AMD and Intel in my X1E, it would be a really easy choice to make. But I don't

 

[maflynn]

I agree. But only because OEMs aren't embracing AMD.

Yes, but as you said earlier, most consumers don't know or care about Intel vs. AMD, vs. ARM

AMD 4000 series chips are simply better than

In all honesty, I never even heard of the 4000 series. From all my research, I saw reviews of the 3xxx and the new 5xxx. My Intel i5-10600k was comparable to the 3600x, in terms of thread/cores but price, no. The Intel was almost 100 dollars cheaper. Performance wise the intel was better especially over clocked. The 3700x was a better all around processor but the price was even higher. Likewise with the 5xxxx, the price point was more then I was really willing to pay.

 

[c0ppo]

In all honesty, I never even heard of the 4000 series. From all my research, I saw reviews of the 3xxx and the new 5xxx. My Intel i5-10600k was comparable to the 3600x, in terms of thread/cores but price, no. The Intel was almost 100 dollars cheaper. Performance wise the intel was better especially over clocked. The 3700x was a better all around processor but the price was even higher. Likewise with the 5xxxx, the price point was more then I was really willing to pay.

4000 series = mobile chips.
Like the one in G14. Ryzen 9 4900HS simply destroys anything Intel has to offer. And that is a 35W CPU.
4900H is even better, that one is 35W.

 

[maflynn]

4000 series = mobile chips.

Oh, I see, thanks for the info

 

[grmlin]

And here we are roughly a year (?) after their release, and we still can't buy machines like an X1 Extreme with a Ryzen inside. It's so sad, really.