AMD is punching way above their weight class lately. It's causing competitors (or really competitor since Intel is their main one) to have to scramble to counter them.
Considering what AMD went through, I indulge in a bit of AMD fanboyism at times, I try to avoid it. Some articles compare the latest Intel releases with AMD, and they often end up saying "ok Intel still has a 10% perf lead in half the tests, but .. twice the price". Am I the only one to consider what AMD did a miracle ? is it Intel friend network turning this into a "meh" ?
I have never been a fanboy of either but for my use case it's a nobrainer right now. Even if I was a fanboy I'd have a hard time justifying getting an intel chip.
But what's up with the single channel ram in the ibm one? Both of the others have dual-channel.
There's no ryzen based laptop atm (regional limits might apply).
One Asus gaming laptop that is basically a desktop that you can carry around, with effort, and that has no battery life to speak of. Not available here.
Two Lenovo laptops (Thinkpad A series and Ideapad), both seem restricted in terms of CPU (aka not the 2700), don't come with the latest GPU or memory (single channel or unknown or limited to 8 GB). None of these is available.
The HP x360. Fancy, limited to 8 GB as it seems. Also doesn't come with the latest APU (only announced for 2500U). Not available yet.
The Acer Swift 3. Limited to 8 GB as far as I can tell. Aaaand not available.
Bottom line: You cannot get a laptop with either the mobile chips or the monster gaming thing now. They exist somewhere, but not here. Most of the announced devices have crippling limitations (memory) and are - for me, someone who deeply sympathizes with AMD - basically DOA. Which probably reinforces the manufacturer's opinion that they should just create Intel based products...?
I want one. I can't get any of these. All of these are kinda bad / quite limited / would be a "I want them for the AMD label, although they suck in some ways" decision.
Fortunately, I can live without such a laptop, for now. I'll just keep an eye out for updates.
Market dynamics I suppose.
More and more i felt the place could be rechristened Apple Technica.
I still love their article on setting up one's own mail server. That was probably the high-water point for their quality.
Both are owned by Conde Nast...
MIT Technology Review remains superb, however: www.technologyreview.com
What does the fact that they picked a report that had an impact on a company (in other words a newsworthy story) with their "journalistic quality"?
Even if the report is back, it had an impact, and that should be reported. You'd rather they didn't covered stories involving upsetting things?