3 ms·

Look for non-Intel solutions. There is absolutely zero reason to adopt Intel CPUs until Intel has proven that they can ship CPUs that do not contain expensive-t

Look for non-Intel solutions. There is absolutely zero reason to adopt Intel CPUs until Intel has proven that they can ship CPUs that do not contain expensive-to-fix security bugs year after year after year (you're on a laptop, every CPU cycle counts to keep heat down and battery life longer). Several companies make Zen 3 APU (Ryzen 5000 series models)-based laptops that have good keyboards, good screens, and the usual other features. The only thing you'll have to give up is "head-set jack", which you really mean to be a 3.5mm TRRS jack. Just use a USB-C dongle here; the rest is fine: laptops have entirely USB-C ports nowadays, with USB-C used for Power Delivery to charge. Also, I'm not sure how you'll achieve a touchscreen that doesn't glare: due to the use case, they have to be Gorilla Glass to survive being touched by human hands. If you want a matte screen, you give up touching, and there are no good coatings to actually reduce glare on a shiny glass screen. As for Wifi and Bluetooth, no laptop really performs badly anymore, everybody buys the same 2 solutions, Broadcom or Qualcomm's. Intel still makes a Wifi chipset, and it used to be good, but it kind of sucks in the 802.11AC and AX eras, and you only see it used in Intel AMT corporate laptops (or a shared platform being sold also for consumers) that necessitate the use. The only laptop I'd absolutely say don't buy is anything with Apple's name on it. Basically, fails almost all of your requirements, while being one of the most expensive examples. Truly sad as well, I like the M1 CPU, and I wish Apple would antitrust'ed to spit PA Semi back, but the entire build around that M1 is pretty trash. Something like https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08YD1JLJF/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08YD1JLJF/ is probably the least expensive option that doesn't footgun you. $6xx, good 14" 1080p screen, 8GB of ram (16GB variants exist), enough SSD on a decent M.2 NVME, an 802.11AX+BT5 chip, good enough keyboard and trackpad, works in Linux, is only stingy on the ports by having 3 (so get a cheap hub if you want to plug in something more than USB PD brick to charge + 3.5mm TRRS dongle + external storage at the same time), supports Modern Standby (deep clock-halt S1, instead of needing to transit in and out of S3; works best on Zen 2/3, iffy on Intel series 9/10/11; Intel is planning on fixing for 12; but also can use S3 just in case you need a laptop to sleep for 24hr+ and retain significant charge), and doesn't have a dedicated GPU (which is a win, the APU's GPU is strong as hell, even can do mid-tier gaming without cooking the laptop).

lostlogin 5y ago
> There is absolutely zero reason to adopt Intel CPUs I’d live to ditch Intel, but quicksync is just so good for video transcoding. 10 or 20 high bitrate video streams can be attacked without any noticeable load on the system. Its excessive from what I need, but it’s just so good. Maybe I’m too easily impressed.
- DiabloD3 5y ago
  AMD and Nvidia's encoding engines can handle more load, do it in lower latency, and also be higher quality in less bits. The last time Intel impressed me with Quicksync was in the Haswell days.
  - lostlogin 5y ago
    I’d far prefer to user onboard graphics, and AMD is ahead as you describe, more so than I’d appreciated. I am impressed with the UHD630, but AMD beats it easily. https://www.tomshardware.com/amp/features/amd-vs-intel-integrated-graphics https://www.tomshardware.com/amp/features/amd-vs-intel-integ...
baq 5y ago
> There is absolutely zero reason to adopt Intel CPUs until Intel has proven that they can ship CPUs that do not contain expensive-to-fix security bugs year after year after year (you're on a laptop, every CPU cycle counts to keep heat down and battery life longer). this is simply not fair. other architectures and CPU manufacturers also suffered from security issues.
- DiabloD3 5y ago
  It is absolutely fair. The ballpark figure for losses over Meltdown/Spectre fixes is about 20%. This means, on a laptop, you produce 20% more heat or your battery's charge lasts 20% less. AMD's worst fix for Spectre/Meltdown lost about 3%, and that was for the original Zen 1. Would you rather have 20% of your CPU/battery just evaporate without warning, or 3%? On top of this, Intel does not make any really competing parts: Intel laptops cost more and flat out perform worse per dollar, with a lower upper limit on maximum performance. The next chance Intel has at being competitive is with their first full scale Cove family core (instead of the Lake/Cove hybrids, which isn't going to be out until Series 12. Side note: Series 12 is already shaping up to be bad, the most cost-effective desktop part is going to go toe to toe with Zen 4 per "real" thread, and have 4 big SMT2 cores and 8 little Atom-like SMT1 cores (so 16 threads, with half of them on smaller and slower power efficient cores, so like how ARM does it), but the competing Zen 4 Ryzen will be 8 real full scale cores (and also 16 threads), which ends up putting it in the ballpark of being around a third faster with the same power usage and pricing. Intel must compete, and I hope Pat Gelsinger can turn the ship around. CPUs take about 3-4 years, from early planning to retail shelves. He became CEO this year, so I don't think they have anything they can do (other than drop pricing significantly) until the Cove that goes up against Zen 6 comes out (which is 2025+).

lostlogin 5y ago

> There is absolutely zero reason to adopt Intel CPUs I’d live to ditch Intel, but quicksync is just so good for video transcoding. 10 or 20 high bitrate video streams can be attacked without any noticeable load on the system. Its excessive from what I need, but it’s just so good. Maybe I’m too easily impressed.

DiabloD3 5y ago
AMD and Nvidia's encoding engines can handle more load, do it in lower latency, and also be higher quality in less bits. The last time Intel impressed me with Quicksync was in the Haswell days.
- lostlogin 5y ago
  I’d far prefer to user onboard graphics, and AMD is ahead as you describe, more so than I’d appreciated. I am impressed with the UHD630, but AMD beats it easily. https://www.tomshardware.com/amp/features/amd-vs-intel-integrated-graphics https://www.tomshardware.com/amp/features/amd-vs-intel-integ...

baq 5y ago

> There is absolutely zero reason to adopt Intel CPUs until Intel has proven that they can ship CPUs that do not contain expensive-to-fix security bugs year after year after year (you're on a laptop, every CPU cycle counts to keep heat down and battery life longer). this is simply not fair. other architectures and CPU manufacturers also suffered from security issues.

DiabloD3 5y ago
It is absolutely fair. The ballpark figure for losses over Meltdown/Spectre fixes is about 20%. This means, on a laptop, you produce 20% more heat or your battery's charge lasts 20% less. AMD's worst fix for Spectre/Meltdown lost about 3%, and that was for the original Zen 1. Would you rather have 20% of your CPU/battery just evaporate without warning, or 3%? On top of this, Intel does not make any really competing parts: Intel laptops cost more and flat out perform worse per dollar, with a lower upper limit on maximum performance. The next chance Intel has at being competitive is with their first full scale Cove family core (instead of the Lake/Cove hybrids, which isn't going to be out until Series 12. Side note: Series 12 is already shaping up to be bad, the most cost-effective desktop part is going to go toe to toe with Zen 4 per "real" thread, and have 4 big SMT2 cores and 8 little Atom-like SMT1 cores (so 16 threads, with half of them on smaller and slower power efficient cores, so like how ARM does it), but the competing Zen 4 Ryzen will be 8 real full scale cores (and also 16 threads), which ends up putting it in the ballpark of being around a third faster with the same power usage and pricing. Intel must compete, and I hope Pat Gelsinger can turn the ship around. CPUs take about 3-4 years, from early planning to retail shelves. He became CEO this year, so I don't think they have anything they can do (other than drop pricing significantly) until the Cove that goes up against Zen 6 comes out (which is 2025+).