The replacement I got is a Motorola razr ultra folding phone.. similar perf point with 16G RAM and 512G storage. This phone is legit.
We're confident it's going to be much better hardware than Pixels and that our users will be happy with it. Our initial goal was only providing competitive security with Pixels but it's now clear we can do better in most areas. Google will likely have a significantly better secure element for a while but that can change too.
What's the point of the Pixel 11 and later now that they aren't supported by AOSP and are no longer going to be best in class for security? The updates and security features are why GrapheneOS uses them. We have ~500k users on the Pixel 6 through Pixel 10a and many of those users had multiple previous Pixel and Nexus devices for GrapheneOS. Our userbase is rapidly growing at an increasing rate and was already significant for Pixels.
Extendable storage is usually provided via the SIM tray. Physical SIMs are being phased out which is not good news for the feature you want. Realistically, you'll still need to use USB-C for headphones or an external drive.
You can look at the Motorola Signature (2026) for an idea of the initial device which will be a successor to it. Their high end devices don't have 3.5mm audio or microSD. They have devices with those but they're nowhere near our requirements.
Physical SIMs being phased out seems to be primarily a US thing right now, but if that happens I'm just gonna stop using phones entirely.
If you want to glue a usb hub, DAC and card reader to your phone, go ahead, but I'd consider that a little bit inconvenient.
Seriously, the latency on wireless and usb-c headphones is so unpredictable that for lecture recording at hacker conferences they've now been banned for both live video/audio production and for video editing, with 3.5mm as the only option going forward.
Bluetooth absolutely has a noticeable delay depending on the codec/profile.
Currently we're using Beyerdynamic DT770 Pro and some MDR-7506.
They'd also need to be fully passive, as any active processing introduces unpredictable delays of up to 16ms, which is unacceptable when the goal is to check sync on audio and video signals.
It sounds to me like you only see everything as consumer devices for media consumption, ignoring the needs of people using computing devices to create things professionally.
The option to have supported Graphene as well as an SD card slot and headphone port would be wonderful.
I was thinking about this and am curious if the Graphene team are specifically treating 'more secure than stock Android' as a non-negotiable for the purpose of having a strong pipe to swing at Google should Google ever play the 'third party distributions need to be shut down... because security' card.
I didn't realized when I started writing this, but apparently even so-called "degoogled"* operating systems use some Google services. For example, LineageOS still talks to Google in order to check DNS connectivity and for Widevine DRM, among other things listed in the table.
GrapheneOS seems to be the only Android-based operating system that really doesn't communicate with Google at all by default, but if your main goal is to avoid Google Play Services, then there are other options.
*"degoogled" seems to be a term people use to describe operating systems even if the operating system page does not describe the OS that way.
[1] https://fsfe.org/activities/android/liberate.en.html#OS [2] https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm
I hope they are now. There is a void to fill.
I haven't used any newer devices with it yet.
What I meant to ask was “If you use GOS, does it matter if Google ends support” and after your comment I read deeper to find the answer “yes, because GOS relies on Google to maintain the firmware”. Thanks for the push
The 24GB MacBook Air is the sweet spot of that model lineup in my opinion. Even if you’re a true “web browsing only” user, you can definitely find a sale or refurbished model with 24GB and that’s a much more wise purchase for long term ownership than being stuck with 16GB.
Especially considering most laptops have soldered memory, I’d have a hard time recommending a new laptop purchase with 16GB if your intention is to keep it many years.
Even though RAM is expensive, there are deals and sales out there.
Sort of but not really? Without the wider bus (and various drawbacks) of GDDR any iGPU is very severely memory bandwidth constrained compared to a dGPU from an equivalently recent generation. It's just that a 3 or 4 generation old dGPU is sufficient for an ever increasing number of titles.
TBF it entirely depends on what is meant by "really good".
> I’d have a hard time recommending a new laptop purchase with 16GB if your intention is to keep it many years.
One of my devices still has only 8GB and I use it daily. It's really not an issue for most things.
Integrated graphics are constrained but often sufficient to play AAA games.
Panther Lake laptops are roughly equivalent to an RTX 4050, which is only a single generation old. Obviously not the strongest GPU to compare against but you’re also pulling a lot less wattage doing it.
I’m sure your 8GB device is working great, but someone buying a brand new device really should avoid that since the implication is that they’re going to keep that device for somewhere between 3-7 years.
tl;dr iGPU vs dGPU memory bandwidth is a >10 year difference.
So now to double check my guestimate of 3 to 4 generations from earlier. Entry level RTX 30 448 GB/s in 2020, eventually downgraded to 168 GB/s in 2024. Entry level RTX 20 448 GB/s in 2018 eventually downgraded to 336 GB/s in 2019. You have to go all the way back to the GeForce 10 series to dip below 100 GB/s and even then that's due to some highly unusual configurations introduced many years after the initial launch. At launch in 2016 the lowest end GTX 1050 pulled 112 GB/s which is nearly 2x Panther Lake IIUC.
For example, the ThinkPad X9 15p with Panther Lake integrated graphics will do 80FPS in Cyberpunk 2077 while the RTX5060 in a Legion 7a will do 109FPS on the same settings (1920x1200, quality up scaling, no frame gen).
So what that means is you can get a super quiet thin and light laptop that gets double digit hours of productivity battery life and has roughly the same tier of gaming experience as a thicker, heavier, power-hungry gaming PC that is pumping 115 watts into the GPU.
To answer your question, LPDDR5x should be more close to 100GB/s so I think you are underestimating the memory bandwidth of Panther Lake laptops. Not sure though.
That all said, overall a RTX5060 or higher laptop would be preferable, I just find it hard to find one that checks a lot of the “thin and light 13-14” premium long battery life productivity laptop that can game on the side” boxes.
The Macs? No, they go up to 614 GB/s, nearly an order of magnitude more.
I wouldn’t say gaming is constrained by GPU memory bandwidth or SSD performance. As long as you have an SSD of any kind, you’re generally fine. Only a few specialized titles like Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart were specifically designed to show off the technical capabilities of fast SSD storage. Most everything else runs just fine without bleeding edge SSD performance, you’re even generally fine running off of a microSD card or SATA III SSD.
Gaming mostly wants to have sufficient GPU RAM capacity and overall 3D rendering performance (for a lack of a precise technical definition of what that means on my part).
Gaming doesn’t tend to move data in and out of VRAM at a particularly fast speed.
Gaming is also generally designed around being able to be released on the latest generation of home consoles, which is now essentially a 6 year old mid-range desktop GPU with 16GB of total system memory.
But of course in practice it depends on the details of what you're doing. This is why I acknowledged up front that it depends on what is meant by "really good". I think iGPUs are sufficient for a huge number of titles in the exact same way that an entry level dGPU from 2018 also is. But I don't think most people would consider that "really good" as you'll generally be stuck in the ballpark of 1080@60 and don't even think about photorealistic VR.
I think it's interesting to note that a while back GPU horsepower reached a point similar to that of CPU horsepower and system RAM capacity that's "good enough" for most common tasks. You don't need (and presumable never will) 32 cores or 64 GB of RAM to check your email or watch youtube. Similarly 1080@60 is sufficient to enjoy most game concepts.
The main point with it is that it’s not a matter of “oh I can’t play the games I want to play reasonably” and that is very much not how integrated graphics used to be.