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.
View attachment 150659
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Zen 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?
