There are still no XPS level laptops available with Ryzen CPUs, which makes me so sad. I'd like to upgrade my work machine but I'd prefer not to buy Intel at this time.
Too bad that, like most Ryzen laptops, it only has a HDMI 1.4 port just like every Lidl/Aldi discount bin laptop from 2012, so you can't get 60Hz at 4K on your external monitor, which is laughable for a device that costs almost a thousand bucks. HDMI 2.0 devices have been on the market since like 2016 already.
I don't know why all OEMs gimp the Ryzen variants like this. It's either they have slower USB/HDMI, or worse screens, or outdated wireless or less RAM/storage than the Intel version of the same device.
One theory I heard, is Intel requires OEMs to sell a certain percentage of their chips on premium machines if they want to stay on their nice partners list and get their chips at good prices, so OEMs, in order to stay in Intel's good graces, just gimp the Ryzen ones to force your hand to buy Intel if you want no compromises, other than an outdated CPU.
My aging laptop is in dire need of replacement and I would also want to replace it with a Ryzen one but the very few ones that have no major compromises have been sold out for months and show no signs of being restocked(in the EU at least) whereas Intel's outdated 9th and 10th gen based laptops are in stock everywhere but I wouldn't touch tose with a 10ft(3,048m) pole.
Maybe my eyes just aren't that good, but I really can't see why I would need 4k over standard HD, which gives me plenty of screen real estate and a perfectly fine picture.
I always get the impression that people are just coding off their laptops all the time. 4k on a laptop seems like overkill.
The big problem is 4800H availability. I gave up waiting for the Tuxedo Pulse 14 with it, and got a M1 Macbook Air instead.
Mate, zou havenät seen the German lazout.
XMG (Clevo/Schenker/Sager/Eurocom/etc) has the best Ryzen laptop I've seen yet, although I don't really like their quality: https://www.xmg.gg/en/xmg-apex-15
I wouldn't put this past intel, but I doubt it's even necessary.
most people that buy laptops don't know that amd is currently beating intel on price/performance in the high-end parts. to most people that have even heard of amd, it's the "budget" cpu brand.
looking at typical home user desktop/laptop configurations, it's obvious that they aren't even trying to choose optimal sets of parts for the price with most of their skus. they just slap together whatever sounds good to the median consumer.
I think this has happened in the past already (https://www.theverge.com/2014/6/12/5803442/intel-nearly-1-an...).
If they're really doing it again... good luck.
I'm on a laptop right now because of WFH, but even with a full "desktop" setup (dock, 2 external monitors, external keyboard/mouse, etc), it's not as pleasant as using a desktop. Crappy graphics, a low power CPU (and only 2 cores), not as much drive space, etc. Even if I get the highest spec laptop available, for the same money a desktop will blow it out of the water.
Maybe if you're traveling a LOT it'd make sense but I have to imagine for the vast majority of people, they're in one spot most of the time. That could be a desk in an office or a fixed spot somewhere at home.
Edit: looks like you can get the Innolux on eBay for around $100 (shipped direct from China). Might have to consider that.
Added "idle=nomwait amd_iommu=off resume=<swap UUID>" kernel params and this seems to sometimes work but usually not...
And what is your battery life? I get ~5 hrs (up to 6.5hrs with most processes disabled except firefox), with around 6-8 watts discharge rate (using powertop --auto-tune).
Typical trials and tribulations of new hardware with linux. I was thinking of trying out Fedora/Ubuntu/Pop_OS to see how they are.
As for Linux, I fully intended to dual boot Arch and Windows. Due to circumstance, I am stuck with a tiny 128GB NVMe and so I am using the default Windows for now. I've been watching this playlist of a user installing Arch on their T14s to help prep me on some of the quirks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihFPynCqfzc&list=PLiKgVPlhUN.... I hope that helps answer some of your questions.
It's an understandable restriction if you already bought a Thunderbolt screen and need a new computer that's compatible with it, but requiring Thunderbolt case I might get a screen that needs it later is very far down my priority list of computer features.
You're only giving up the data part of TB3.
There's actually no difference here whatsoever on the display-only side of things.
(side note, USB 3.2 achieves up to 20Gb/s, not 10Gb/s, and TB3 is also realistically only 20Gb/s as well unless you're sticking to the super short 0.5m cables)
But good to know about the display connection being the same. I was under the assumption that the increased data rate of TB3 could be used for DisplayPort connection too.
https://www.cablematters.com/pc-1220-126-usb-c-triple-4k-dis...
If you want displays and all your other dock stuff combined under a single cable, that's where you're better off with Thunderbolt, yes. The USB-C docks can do some of this (I think with DisplayLink) but not quite as well.
A Thunderbolt dock doesn't limit your display choices like the comment I replied to was talking about though, you'd just use any normal DisplayPort screen. Worst case without it you're plugging in separate display cables in addition to a non-video USB hub.
So I think lack of thunderbolt comes down to manufacturers not wanting to pay as much for their AMD R&D and keep costs down with simple, budget motherboards.
Or, if you needed Thunderbolt 3, you could just wait until USB 4 is commonplace, which is basically Thunderbolt 3 + some more.
[1]: https://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/X570%20Phantom%20Gaming-ITXTB3... (there are more, and even ATX boards, first one I could find).
The problem is yes, there's no AMD equivalent it seems. Maybe T14s but it's not available in my country right now.