Originally Posted by CynicalUnicorn
That's actually a problem with high-end hardware in general. If you're buying a prebuilt, you can bet that it will suck. OEMs skimp on anything they don't advertise. They advertise the resolution but not the panel type. The advertise that it does have flash but not the brand. But you better believe they'll advertise an i7 and a 980(M), even if the motherboard is the lowest of low-end chipsets and the PSU can barely handle them. Apple, as much as I hate them as a company, does a great job in every area but cooling (and price
). Metal case + mostly passive = skin-meltingly hot.
True, even before Apple went "Retina" their screen quality was considerably better than others. I would've preferred less crap resolution though.
Apple assuredly doesn't skimp on the cooling. Have you seen how much paste they use on their laptops? How do you think they run without melting people's thighs
I friggin' hate OEMs so much. My old laptop died and I needed a new one. There was a $300 Toshiba I was looking at (since all I needed was a cheap Linux box). "AMD A8." Cool, which one? Turns out it's a quad-core Puma chip. Not bad! Reviews of the laptop? Trackpad is absolutely awful and the drivers for WiFi haven't been updated in years. This isn't even a case of bad hardware, it's lazy manufacturers.
And of course, it's 2015 and we're still stuck with 1366x768 on laptops while phones have been 1080p for years.
The issue with AMD is that there are so few systems using their chips. With Intel systems, finding a decent one is the saying "even a broken clock is once twice a day" in action, except here it's hundreds of broken clocks.
Looking at Windows I can easily see why the masses dream of Apple laptops. OS X is so much simpler (for better and a lot worse) and things like drivers you just don't have to deal with. Even my MBP has issues with the Windows drivers. I wanted to setup Bluetooth for my wireless speaker and I found out that the drivers just don't work. "Okay, surely other laptops use the same driver I can just find one that works". There was one theoretical working model, some obscure Acer laptop, but without the driver for that anywhere to be found. It's a damned cluster F.
My Ivy bridge MBP should not be 1280x800. I feel kinda jipped, I was forced by time (and my other laptop getting broken-y) to upgrade. Otherwise I could've had a retina.
Originally Posted by epic1337
oh but they are? 6c i7-E costs $549 at the moment.
though that aside, its a great progress, seeing 6c going as cheap as $550 is quite good in itself.
its sad though LGA2011-3 is an expensive choice in general, if only mobos could be had for ~$100.
if AMD aren't gonna go back on their FX line though they gotta at least give us a 3module APU instead.
all these 2module APUs are bottom tier in intel's point of view, regardless of IGP performance.
all intel has to do is release a $200 i3-K with iris pro IGP, that'd slaughter AMD's APUs.
The cost in the extreme platforms isn't in the CPUs themselves so much as it is in everything else. And as map mentioned, it's $400, which is quite a bit difference in price. Still ridiculous, but Intel can't exactly do much about it without killing off AMD, which no one wants for better and worse.
Even cheap extreme platform builds come with a premium, and NO ONE wants to or should skimp on an extreme platform build.
Originally Posted by SpeedyVT
I like both AMD and Intel, but the Anti-AMD is massive in this forum. No one would agree. I however think the possibility is that if they focus on their mobile platform they can improve their desktop platform simply from the R&D used to improve IPC on a lower TDP. Focusing too high is a distraction simply because they don't control that market share. People will continue to buy Intel even if AMD manages to produce something better. They'd have to sway a majority. So the trick is work the low TDP niche till they can solve all their problems in the enthusiast market.
I'd say you have a point as that worked for Intel, but the issue is there situations are considerably different, Intel had the lead and could afford to just focus on efficiency and the iGPU deficit.