A 52 Ah 4-cell battery powers the Creator 14, and can keep it running for up to 6 hours on a full charge.

Does this apply to the 17 too?

SN2716057Does this apply to the 17 too?

According to MSI's site, the 17 has a 82Whr battery with an advertised 7 hours of battery life. Spec page linked below.

us.msi.com/Content-creation/Creator-17-A10SX/Specification

Also, the spec page doesn't list 64GB of RAM as an option. It does list the RTX 2080 Super Max-Q though as well as a 2TB NVMe SDD. The 4k panel has an incredible 240 lighting zones. I'm super ready for Mini LED.

Small right-Shift keys are about as anti-creator as it gets. My second laptop was a 15" and it had a dinky right Shift key and I'd constantly press the up arrow instead while working on code. No one seems to do market testing these days.

Also, Intel? Really?!

JAB CreationsSmall right-Shift keys are about as anti-creator as it gets. My second laptop was a 15" and it had a dinky right Shift key and I'd constantly press the up arrow instead while working on code. No one seems to do market testing these days.

Also, Intel? Really?!

As with pretty much everything launching with Intel 10th gen, design work on this started more than a year ago. Back then OEMs couldn't know that Ryzen 4000 would kick Intel's butt. Unfortunately that's the advantage of being a long-standing market leader - people trust you based on history, and distrust others on the same basis. When things then change rapidly, the market is very slow in responding.

Still, there's no denying this would be dramatically improved by using a Ryzen 4800H or 4900H.


Any word on how many FALD zones that MiniLED backlight has?

ValantarAny word on how many FALD zones that MiniLED backlight has?

240 on the 4k 17 inch panel, which is very impressive.

Also, not sure if we'll be seeing a lot of AMD CPUs on MSI laptops as they've recently pretty much pledged alliance to Intel. Saying they've had bad experiences with AMD and whatnot.

JAB CreationsSmall right-Shift keys are about as anti-creator as it gets. My second laptop was a 15" and it had a dinky right Shift key and I'd constantly press the up arrow instead while working on code. No one seems to do market testing these days.

Also, Intel? Really?!

Still beats having the power button next to the delete key at the top row of the keyboard, both being the same size.
Also, it's not a short shift key in this case, it's just a bad keyboard layout, as the shift key obviously has to extend to the bottom of the enter key.
As someone that grew up with and prefer using ISO to ANSI layout, the situation is even worse, as a lot of companies are making ANSI keyboards with a shoehorned in ISO layout. It makes it really hard to touch type.
Too many companies doing dumb keyboard layouts to save money on keyboard moulds and tooling.

JAB CreationsSmall right-Shift keys are about as anti-creator as it gets.

I'm not sure I've EVER used the right shift, but maybe you're left-handed or something.
Anyway, it's anything but small in this laptop, so maybe you're looking at a wrong picture...?

My second laptop was a 15" and it had a dinky right Shift key and I'd constantly press the up arrow instead while working on code. No one seems to do market testing these days.

So maybe you mean a shift next to the up arrow...

MSI "pro" laptops are, for the most part, just quickly converted gaming models in posh, "serious" skin. They're aimed at people who focus on performance, not comfort and usability.

You want a well designed laptop, pay the premium for a business/workstation model from Dell, Lenovo or HP. Or just get a Macbook Pro.

Also, Intel? Really?!

Why not? :o

ValantarStill, there's no denying this would be dramatically improved by using a Ryzen 4800H or 4900H.

I'm willing to deny the "dramatically" part - even beyond the benchmark figures we've seen already (10875H and 4800H are surprisingly close in performance).
Wait for the user feedback and real-world reviews.

RahnakAccording to MSI's site, the 17 has a 82Whr battery with an advertised 7 hours of battery life. Spec page linked below.

us.msi.com/Content-creation/Creator-17-A10SX/Specification

Also, the spec page doesn't list 64GB of RAM as an option. It does list the RTX 2080 Super Max-Q though as well as a 2TB NVMe SDD. The 4k panel has an incredible 240 lighting zones. I'm super ready for Mini LED.

UP TO 7 hrs battery life. (And we know how THAT pans out) Running at full chat...probably around an hour. (If you're lucky)

Rahnak240 on the 4k 17 inch panel, which is very impressive.

Cool - that's not bad at all. Better than quite a few large monitors, after all.

RahnakAlso, not sure if we'll be seeing a lot of AMD CPUs on MSI laptops as they've recently pretty much pledged alliance to Intel. Saying they've had bad experiences with AMD and whatnot.

Considering MSI has already launched a gaming laptop series based on the 4000-series APUs I think it's relatively safe to say that they have somewhat reversed that position. Then again that might just be an attempt at not seeming biased - it's difficult to tell, particularly after a flat out dumb statement like that infamous one from their CEO.

notbI'm not sure I've EVER used the right shift, but maybe you're left-handed or something.
Anyway, it's anything but small in this laptop, so maybe you're looking at a wrong picture...?

So maybe you mean a shift next to the up arrow...

Maybe this is a difference between US ANSI users and (Scandinavian) ISO users? 'Cause I almost exclusively use the right shift (with my right pinky finger), with the left shift seeing very little use. And I'm right handed. (ISO keyboards have part of the ANSI left shift replaced with a key for < and > next to Z though, which of course affects how available the left shift is.) Then again I don't see how this would change if I wrote exclusively in English on an ANSI keyboard - A is still one of the most used characters, so the left-hand pinky finger has plenty of work compared to the one on the right hand.

notbMSI "pro" laptops are, for the most part, just quickly converted gaming models in posh, "serious" skin. They're aimed at people who focus on performance, not comfort and usability.

You want a well designed laptop, pay the premium for a business/workstation model from Dell, Lenovo or HP. Or just get a Macbook Pro.

There's no denying that there are major differences between different "pro" laptops, but this does offer some very compelling features that are neither cribbed from a parallel gaming model nor available from other vendors.

notbWhy not? :eek:

I'm willing to deny the "dramatically" part - even beyond the benchmark figures we've seen already (10875H and 4800H are surprisingly close in performance).
Wait for the user feedback and real-world reviews.

Why not? Because power consumption. Did you catch the little asterisk in Intel's presentation noting that Turbo Power for these i9s is 135W? In other words, to maintain the advertised speed (yes, the advertise TVB turbo speeds, the idiots) you need a laptop capable of delivering and dissipating 135W of power over 30s or longer for the CPU alone. In other words: no laptops will be able to maintain these speeds outside of a very, very short window.

As for being close in performance: Not under any kind of sustained load. At 45W - which is supposed to be the sustained power of chips like the 10875H - it will only hit ~2.4GHz, or perhaps slightly higher if it's a good bin - that's the base clock of the chip, and that is how Intel specifies base clock - the base sustainable clock within TDP. At the same power, a 4900H will hit 3.3GHz - 37.5% higher. Plus the 4900H has Zen 2's ~7% IPC advantage over Skylake and its derivatives (number is from AnandTech's SPEC2006 testing of 9900K vs. 3700X from the 3700X review). It's also worth mentioning that the 65W cTDP-up mode of the 10875H - which only serves to raise the base clock - only raises the base clock to 3.1GHz. In other words, even at 65W vs. 45W for a 4900H, the 10875H will have 6% lower clocks and 7% lower IPC for a total of ~13.5% less performance in any sustained load.

(This isn't saying AMD's mobile chips don't boost above TDP - they definitely do. The 35W 4900HS in the Asus G14 boosts to 65W for about 30s, steps down to about 55W for a few minutes, before stepping down to 35W sustained, at which point the benchmark data I've seen actually has it running above base clock, at around 3.4-3.5GHz (the 4900HS has a 3.0GHz base clock unlike the 3.3GHz 4900H.)

It's also worth noting that the 10875H in its 65W cTDP-up mode is very comparable to a desktop Ryzen 9 3900 (non-X) - 65W TDP, ~140W max boost power draw, 3.1GHz base clock. Only the 3900 has 50% more cores. That's some food for thought IMO.

In sum, Intel is rapidly hitting the point AMD was at with the FX series around 2013 or so (no, not where they were in 2016, which was much worse): their only way of competing in absolute performance is by pushing clocks, which drives up power consumption and is thus ever more unsustainable as it's pushed higher. And in a laptop, this results in actually lower performance as laptops have hard power and thermal limits unlike most desktops. (A major difference between 2020 Intel and 2013 AMD is of course that Intel has a new architecture waiting in the wings - they just need to get the production process for it working well enough to get it out the door, which they have so far only managed for relatively low-volume U-series parts.)

So to get back to the point: It would be dramatically worse, as at best it would perform ~30% slower at the same power or ~13% lower at 20W higher power, though due to Intel's heavy-handed boost algorithms you're rather likely to have very spiky performance as the chip fluctuates between power/thermals slowing the chip down, it cooling down, then attempting to boost high again, restarting the loop. Fluctuations like this further reduce performance over time. It also places more stress on the cooling system, which means less effort can be put into cooling the GPU. Using an AMD APU would thus allow for a faster GPU with the same thermal solution, or running cooler and quieter with the same specification, while performing better overall. In my book, that is indeed a dramatic improvement.

btarunrMSI Launches the Creator 17 Notebook: 17.3-inch 4K miniLED Monstrosity

This thing doesn't qualify as a "monstrosity". Acer's 21" Predator qualifies.

ValantarMaybe this is a difference between US ANSI users and (Scandinavian) ISO users? 'Cause I almost exclusively use the right shift (with my right pinky finger), with the left shift seeing very little use. And I'm right handed. (ISO keyboards have part of the ANSI left shift replaced with a key for < and > next to Z though, which of course affects how available the left shift is.) Then again I don't see how this would change if I wrote exclusively in English on an ANSI keyboard - A is still one of the most used characters, so the left-hand pinky finger has plenty of work compared to the one on the right hand.

I'm sure typing technique has a lot to do with this.
If you type "a" with a pinky, there's a good chance you're typing as a machine typer would, i.e. optimized for text. Obviously, nothing wrong with that. What most of us do is typing text.


However, a $3500 is likely not the first choice for text writers. :)

Focusing on the profile of clients, who may be interested in such a "creators" notebook, you have to really consider 2 massive groups:
1. Those who work with a mouse: editing graphics, photo, video, sound, 3D models and so on. Vast majority of them will use the mouse with their right hand. Left hand will be mostly for shortcuts, which often involve shift, so they're more likely to use the left one.
2. All kinds of coders, who will almost never follow the traditional typing technique. That's simply because while coding you use way more symbols than in natural text. You'd have to input half of the code (sans space) with your pinkies.
Instead, they'll use a more adaptative style with their hands moving around a bit.

There's no denying that there are major differences between different "pro" laptops, but this does offer some very compelling features that are neither cribbed from a parallel gaming model nor available from other vendors.

Hardly anything worth noting on the laptop case. It's a gaming layout.
As for the keyboard itself, there is a very simple way to notice this: all 4 arrow keys full size. You won't find them in almost any business/workstation laptop - even the big 17" models with numpads. They only remained in gaming laptops.

Why not? Because power consumption. Did you catch the little asterisk in Intel's presentation noting that Turbo Power for these i9s is 135W? In other words, to maintain the advertised speed (yes, the advertise TVB turbo speeds, the idiots) you need a laptop capable of delivering and dissipating 135W of power over 30s or longer for the CPU alone. In other words: no laptops will be able to maintain these speeds outside of a very, very short window.

Hmm... weird comment?
It's boost. It's supposed to be short and significant. Ryzen does the exact same thing. Every boosting CPU does - or at least should.
If a CPU manages to hold a "boost" frequency for a very long time (even indefinitely), it means it's not a boost. It's the actual native frequency. And the manufacturer lied to you by calling it "boost" and then being able to set the "base" frequency low enough to meet some arbitrary TDP figure.

Not under any kind of sustained load.

That's why I said: wait for real world reviews and user opinions.
Yes, I'm 100% sure Ryzen 4800H will be better for all day long rendering.

As for your very long text about TDP, cTDP and all that. I commend the work, but I'm not interested in the posh figures. And I really don't care about IPC. I use laptops, not admire them.
Wait for the user feedback. We'll see what's what.

Zen and Zen+ mobile SoCs were supposed to be great as well. :)

notbWhat most of us do is typing text.

This however does not apply to people with large hands(such as myself) who physically have severe difficulty with the QWERTY method. I have not used it since the 7th grade when my hands grew larger than the typewriter they taught us with. It was literally painful to do for more than 5 minutes. So I went to the 6 fingered approach(Index, middle and thumb of each hand). Never looked back. Granted, my typing speed is amazing, but it is not the slowest either.

lexluthermiesterThis however does not apply to people with large hands(such as myself) who physically have severe difficulty with the QWERTY method. I have not used it since the 7th grade when my hands grew larger than the typewriter they taught us with. It was literally painful to do for more than 5 minutes. So I went to the 6 fingered approach(Index, middle and thumb of each hand). Never looked back. Granted, my typing speed is amazing, but it is not the slowest either.

Honestly, this doesn't apply to almost anyone today.
When this technique was conceived, typing was for typists, i.e. for someone trained and "optimized" to write down someone else's thoughts, messages or notes (usually from speech). Hence, the most important information on typist's CV was how many characters or words he can type in a minute.

For some reason I never really understood, this "words per minute" fallacy survived deep into the PC era and well beyond the secretary niche.
Typing training software was a popular addition to PC magazines in the early 2000s - even those about gaming and linux. That was just bizzare.

IMO if you're the author - writing a book, an article, software documentation, a mathematical proof or a research report - an you feel limited by the ~40 words/minute and average person achieves, there's a good chance the text you're writing isn't very valuable...

notbI'm sure typing technique has a lot to do with this.
If you type "a" with a pinky, there's a good chance you're typing as a machine typer would, i.e. optimized for text. Obviously, nothing wrong with that. What most of us do is typing text.

This is likely true. I type in a way resembling touch typing, though by no means "perfect". I still utilize most of my fingers, as that for me is by far the fastest way to type. Also, moving my hands more than I do would very quickly give me RSI, so minimizing hand movement (which touch typing is designed for) is a goal unto itself. Of course if I wanted to perfect that I ought to move to DVORAK or some alternative layout, though I really couldn't deal with that hassle.

notbHowever, a $3500 is likely not the first choice for text writers. :)

Focusing on the profile of clients, who may be interested in such a "creators" notebook, you have to really consider 2 massive groups:
1. Those who work with a mouse: editing graphics, photo, video, sound, 3D models and so on. Vast majority of them will use the mouse with their right hand. Left hand will be mostly for shortcuts, which often involve shift, so they're more likely to use the left one.
2. All kinds of coders, who will almost never follow the traditional typing technique. That's simply because while coding you use way more symbols than in natural text. You'd have to input half of the code (sans space) with your pinkies.
Instead, they'll use a more adaptative style with their hands moving around a bit.

I think you have a rather limited view of what people's workdays consist of. While shortcut keys are indeed mostly used like you say, most people whose main work tasks are mouse+keyboard shortcut bound also do a lot of typing while working - emails, various project reports or memos, internal work communication through other means, etc. They might not type as much as academics or professional writers, but they still type a lot. As for coders using different techniques - that's pretty much a given, as you say, but even for $3500 laptops the main audience isn't coders. That obviously doesn't mean that everyone else does touch typing or has "perfect" hand utilization/positioning, but there's also no correlation whatsoever between not touch typing and using the left shift button more while typing. Which keys you use are more dependent on hand positioning than anything else, and hand positioning changes dependent on what you're doing.

notbHardly anything worth noting on the laptop case. It's a gaming layout.
As for the keyboard itself, there is a very simple way to notice this: all 4 arrow keys full size. You won't find them in almost any business/workstation laptop - even the big 17" models with numpads. They only remained in gaming laptops.

Wait, did you forget what you yourself wrote in the previous post? This part of the response wasn't related to the keyboard whatsoever, but your comment about whether this compared to other "pro" laptops in terms of features and build quality.

notbHmm... weird comment?

Why? You responded to "Why Intel" with "Why not" - and I gave you a rather clear argument for why not. Is that weird? Again, it seems like you aren't actually paying attention to what we are actually discussing.

notbIt's boost. It's supposed to be short and significant. Ryzen does the exact same thing. Every boosting CPU does - or at least should.
If a CPU manages to hold a "boost" frequency for a very long time (even indefinitely), it means it's not a boost. It's the actual native frequency. And the manufacturer lied to you by calling it "boost" and then being able to set the "base" frequency low enough to meet some arbitrary TDP figure.

Seriously, did you even read what I wrote? While I haven't yet seen boost power numbers from the 45W H-series AMD chips, the 35W HS chips (which have just as high boost clocks, but might pull slightly less power during peak boost due to better binning) peak at 65W. Even accounting for the lower TDP that's an 87% increase over TDP. Intel on the other hand has a 200% increase over TDP for their 45W i9s, at 135W over 45W. Saying "Ryzen does the exact same thing" is thus just not true. There's a very, very significant difference between these two boost systems.

notbThat's why I said: wait for real world reviews and user opinions.
Yes, I'm 100% sure Ryzen 4800H will be better for all day long rendering.

We have real-world reviews of Ryzen 4000 already, if a slightly narrow selection so far. As for real-world reviews of these new Intel chips, there's not really any reason, as performance is entirely predictable - more or less the same performance as the previous generation, with minor increases where clock speeds have increased, but also higher thermals and power draw due to there not being any underlying improvements to alleviate this. For reference, the i9-10875H has the same base clock as its predecessor, just .3GHz higher max boost. There will likely be measurable increases in performance for bursty workloads, but the question then becomes how much these matter - if your CPU boosts to 5.3GHz instead of 5GHz while opening an application or document, does that 6% increase in clock speed actually translate to a noticeable improvement in any way? I find that highly doubtful. If your application opens in one second, that's instead .94s; 2s becomes 1.88s; 5s becomes 4.72s; 10s becomes 9.4s, etc. Is that a noticeable performance improvement? No. Not whatsoever. It will still likely be faster than the competition for bursty tasks like this, but again, is this noticeable? I doubt it. And for anyone where sustained performance matters (including less than 100% sustained loads, like video editing, not exporting) the competition will be significantly faster due to lower thermals and thus higher sustained clocks.

notbAs for your very long text about TDP, cTDP and all that. I commend the work, but I'm not interested in the posh figures. And I really don't care about IPC. I use laptops, not admire them.
Wait for the user feedback. We'll see what's what.

Wow, that isn't condescending at all. Well done. *slow clap*

Now, saying "I don't care about IPC. I use laptops, not admire them." - what on earth are you talking about? This makes no sense whatsoever. You understand what IPC is, right? That increased IPC at a given clock speed means better performance when using the PC? If you use laptops, and thus care about how well they perform for the tasks you use them for, caring about IPC (in combination with clock speeds, thermals and power draw, and thus absolute performance, of course) is the only thing that makes sense. No, it ultimately doesn't matter to a user how a PC reaches a given level of performance as long as it does, but my entire point is that Intel's current disadvantages (power draw/efficiency, IPC) are causing them to push what they can so high in order to stay competitive that they will inevitably hurt the user experience. A hotter running chip needs either a bigger chassis for better cooling (worse portability) or will run slower (worse performance); a hotter running chip in a small chassis will push skin temperatures higher making the laptop less comfortable to use; a hotter running chip will need faster, noisier fans, making the device more annoying to use. All of these are problems with using the laptop that arise from differences of silicon production and quality. Saying you don't care about one because you care about the other is nonsensical.

notbZen and Zen+ mobile SoCs were supposed to be great as well. :)

Yes, and? They were decent, but had idle power draw issues and unimpressive overall performance due to the combination of lower clocks (due to a worse process) and lower IPC than the competition - overall very similar to their desktop counterparts, except the desktop versions had a core count advantage to slightly make up for that and also pushed clocks higher. We already know that all of these issues have been solved in Ryzen 4000 APUs, at least the HS-series, and it would be very odd if the same didn't carry over to H- and U-series considering they are all the same silicon.

You seem to be entirely ignoring that there are quite a few reviews of Ryzen 4000 APUs already out there. Maybe go read a couple of them?

ValantarThis is likely true. I type in a way resembling touch typing, though by no means "perfect". I still utilize most of my fingers, as that for me is by far the fastest way to type. Also, moving my hands more than I do would very quickly give me RSI, so minimizing hand movement (which touch typing is designed for) is a goal unto itself.

But I'm touch typing as well. You don't need stationary hands to do that. It's muscle memory.

Of course if I wanted to perfect that I ought to move to DVORAK or some alternative layout, though I really couldn't deal with that hassle.

The last time I've seen anyone using DVORAK was at university. We coded in C/C++ mostly and DVORAK spreads the key symbolic characters.

I never liked the idea. It's overcomplicating the problem and makes it hard for DVORAK users to work (e.g. show something) on other PCs.
Like with other issues I've anwered to later in this post - it's just another aspect that draws attention from doing the actual work.

QWERTY is not perfect, but it's a usable common standard.

I think you have a rather limited view of what people's workdays consist of.

I assure you I don't. But whatever. :)

I'm cutting a very long text, sorry. I'm not sure where you were going with that.

Now, saying "I don't care about IPC. I use laptops, not admire them." - what on earth are you talking about? This makes no sense whatsoever. You understand what IPC is, right?

Yes, I do. And I don't care.

I very much care about performance, battery life, usability, heat - all the things I have direct contact with. I just try not to think where the PC performance comes from. As long as the PC does what I want, I don't even care about frequency and what CPU is inside. Seriously, it's not important. It only draws your attention from the important stuff.

You're writing very long and fairly obvious monologues. You won't concinve me I should sacrifice what I'm doing and waste time comparing IPC benchmarks. Please, don't write these long posts anymore. I won't answer. :)

If you're so emotionally attached to hardware, you'll find migrating to cloud very painful.

notbIf you're so emotionally attached to hardware, you'll find migrating to cloud very painful.

Wow, you can't help yourself, can you? I don't even know where to start with this pathetic attempt at an ad hominem to derail the discussion. Pretty disappointing stuff. What are you trying to achieve here?

notbBut I'm touch typing as well. You don't need stationary hands to do that. It's muscle memory.

If you're touch typing without using all your fingers, you aren't technically touch typing in the strict sense, just the broad one ("typing without looking"). Those aren't the same thing, even if the latter has appropriated the term of the former. Either way, you're misunderstanding what I said.

notbThe last time I've seen anyone using DVORAK was at university. We coded in C/C++ mostly and DVORAK spreads the key symbolic characters.

I never liked the idea. It's overcomplicating the problem and makes it hard for DVORAK users to work (e.g. show something) on other PCs.
Like with other issues I've anwered to later in this post - it's just another aspect that draws attention from doing the actual work.

QWERTY is not perfect, but it's a usable common standard.

Well, QWERTY is usable mostly because we're all used to it. If someone was to design a keyboard layout from scratch for modern PCs, it wouldn't resemble QWERTY. After all it was designed chiefly to avoid jamming in mechanical lever-style typewriters by grouping frequently used letters on the same fingers so that they wouldn't be pressed in rapid succession - the opposite goal of DVORAK, which aims to spread the most used letters out to optimise typing speed and ease. QWERTY as such is inherently unergonomic and promotes RSI to a certain degree. Of course DVORAK is fighting an utterly and completely entrenched standard. As I said, not worth the hassle in any way whatsoever - QWERTY is everywhere and not going anywhere. We're stuck with it. But anyhow, my point was just that we all adapt our typing technique to what we need to do and how we individually can do it best under our circumstances. In my case, that means using all my fingers for typing and attempting to minimise hand movement to avoid wrist strain, which obviously includes using my pinky fingers actively.

notbI assure you I don't. But whatever. :)

Your examples above say otherwise. Either you presented them as you said, as what you thought of as the most relevant and common examples of professional users with "creator" workloads - in which my criticism absolutely stands - or you have other examples that you deliberately omitted in order to make a disingenuous argument. Logically, one of these must be true.

notbI'm cutting a very long text, sorry. I'm not sure where you were going with that.

Where I was going is that your arguments and claims don't add up. You say to wait for benchmarks; I say they already exist (for Ryzen 4000-series, and for Intel 9th Gen, which there is no reason to expect significant performance increases from). You say you only care about performance in terms of user experience, I explain in concrete ways why the choice of these parts requires a selection of compromises that will inevitably make for a worse user experience than with the alternative parts.

notbYes, I do. And I don't care.

Well, it's your funeral. You are either misunderstanding it or deliberately ignoring its relevance to your own arguments in order to adjust an uncomfortable reality to your worldview.

notbI very much care about performance, battery life, usability, heat - all the things I have direct contact with. I just try not to think where the PC performance comes from. As long as the PC does what I want, I don't even care about frequency and what CPU is inside. Seriously, it's not important. It only draws your attention from the important stuff.

That's all perfectly fine. The problem is when you then refuse to accept evidence that shows that the things you claim to care about will be worse due to the choice of components. Battery life and heat will both be worse on Intel 10th Gen H than Ryzen 4000 H in a chassis with the same cooling capability, which in turn will make for worse usability. The only way to avoid this would be to reduce performance, which, well, reduces performance. And again hurts usability, of course.

Of course, if you try not to think about which components are inside, it would be wise to avoid questions like "Why not [Intel]?" like above - as that question quite clearly expresses an interest in internal components.

notbYou're writing very long and fairly obvious monologues. You won't concinve me I should sacrifice what I'm doing and waste time comparing IPC benchmarks. Please, don't write these long posts anymore. I won't answer. :)

Nice straw man you have there, did you make it yourself? 'Cause I never said anything about comparing IPC benchmarks, nor anything even remotely close to that. All I said was that AMD's currently superior IPC is one of the (several) reasons why this generation of Intel chips is a poor choice for laptops like this. I never said anything about what you ought to spend your time doing, reading, comparing, or anything of that sort either, nor did I say that you should explicitly care about IPC - I said that given your stated interest in overall usability and performance you ought to have an interest in PCs using the best components to achieve this (or at least not express an inclination towards one vendor or another contrary to this), and explained why there is little reason to expect these Intel CPUs to change anything of importance.