5 ms·
AMD notebooks/systems usually come with less memory, storage and inferior GPUs, despite being faster than Intel. The thing that makes me most upset are inferior
by bitL 6y ago
AMD notebooks/systems usually come with less memory, storage and inferior GPUs, despite being faster than Intel. The thing that makes me most upset are inferior displays; often the top AMD model has some TN panel at 1920x1080, whereas top Intel model has an OLED 4k. This is criminal.
I had to buy an Intel-based Razer with 4k@120 and 3080 because there is no similar AMD model provided by anyone. Like nobody in the whole world has a comparable AMD system.
- exporectomy 6y agoMaybe it's just market segmentation with better GPUs aimed at gamers and better CPUs aimed at "creators"? I think a lot of games won't fully use 16 cores but many creator-type applications use as many as available while not needing cutting edge graphics.
- totalZero 6y agoA 4K notebook display barely improves what your eyes see, at the cost of an enormous bump in power consumption. From an engineering perspective that's not a good tradeoff for battery life. This may be why they don't dominate the market. ASUS makes multiple AMD laptops with high resolution and/or high refresh rate. Not sure if any are 4K OLED 120Hz, but the fact that you chose a corner case display constraint that was only satisfied by Intel machines may be more a reflection of the constraint than a conspiracy. The vast majority of Intel models don't offer that option either. Also it's very easy to find IPS and VA laptops, but if you noticed a TN panel being offered for a gaming machine that's because it offers superior response time at the cost of contrast and color accuracy.
- caskstrength 6y ago> Several bones to pick with your post but the salient one is that a 4K notebook display barely improves what your eyes see, at the cost of an enormous bump in power consumption. No, it might barely improve what _you_ see, but for me the difference between screens on work laptop (FHD) and my personal X1C is enormous and immediately obvious.
- zuhsetaqi 6y ago> No, it might barely improve what _you_ see, but for me the difference between screens on work laptop (FHD) and my personal X1C is enormous and immediately obvious. Between FHD and 4K for sure there’s a huge difference. But 4K is way overkill for 15“. And I really don’t understand why there’s like nobody except Apple who uses panels in a sweet spot between FHD and 4K. I have a HP ZBook 15“ with an FHD panel as my work laptop and it’s a bad experience especially when you’re dealing with text all the time. My personal MacBook Pro doesn‘t have 4K but a lot more than FHD and it’s perfectly fine. Same thing I didn’t get with aspect ratio. Apple did use 16:10 for years until some OEM realized that 16:9 is just bad for everything except movies.
- GordonS 6y agoI have a 3K (QHD) external monitor, and I think that's the sweet spot for me - I really wish QHD or WQXGA was a more popular option on 15-16" laptops.
- RosanaAnaDana 6y ago>AMD notebooks/systems usually come with less memory, storage and inferior GPUs Laughs in system 76 Absolutely loving my Ryzen 7 with an RTX 2070 Max Q.
- bitL 6y ago15.6” FHD (1920x1080) Matte Finished, 144 Hz... Still inferior display.
- RosanaAnaDana 5y agoKeyboard could be a little 'tighter' at this price point.