https://youtu.be/s2NBS9tkwCA
This is a 7300HQ/1050 ti laptop, bit weaker hardware yes than what you've currently got but even compared to a RTX 3060 6 GB VRAM GPU like the legion 5 in the video, that legion is a good step up in performance from your current laptop.
As for VRAM, whilst you mention 16 GB VRAM, the only Nvidia GPUs with this amount of VRAM is the RTX 3080 16 GB, 3080 ti and 4090 mobile GPUs. Worth noting that the RTX 4090 laptop GPU for example is based off the RTX 4080 desktop card and 24 GB VRAM GPUs in laptops I don't expect any time soon, particularly given the lack of overall competition Nvidia has in the mobile GPU space.
You could look at the used market for 3080 16 GB 165W laptops like the Legion 7 or possibly 3080 ti 16 GB 175W VRAM laptops.
Worth noting that GPU progress in the last few years isn't as big as what it once was in the mobile space for definite in the mid range segment, really the high end stuff is where the big performance uplifts are.
CPU performance uplifts though I'd say is good in the past few years though.
CPU performance increases have been a bit more noticeable but it's also largely due to Intel sitting on different variations of Sandy Bridge for almost a decade without any competition. AMD brought competition to the CPU space in the form of Ryzen but despite the efforts of AMD and Intel, no such thing seems to have happened in the GPU space. :(
I will just mention that the likes of the i7 8750H in your laptop or similar compared to today's CPUs isn't just a few more cores at higher clocks, there's improvement in regards to efficiency (Newer nodes, 7 and 10 nm Vs the infamous 14 nm of old), more cache etc too.
Taking a 16 Core/22 thread Core ultra 7 155H or 20 core/28 thread 14700HX relative to the likes of the 8750H, you're looking at over twice the L3 cache over your current CPU and a big overall improvement with CPU performance.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/i7-8750H-vs-Ultra-7-155H-vs-i7-14700HX_9576_16906_17168.247596.0.html
https://www.notebookcheck.net/i9-13900HX-vs-i9-13900K_14659_14625.247596.0.html
13900HX specs:
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/232171/intel-core-i9-13900hx-processor-36m-cache-up-to-5-40-ghz.html
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/230496/intel-core-i913900k-processor-36m-cache-up-to-5-80-ghz/specifications.html
The 13900HX laptop CPU has a base TDP of 55W with a maximum supposed short term TDP of 157W but with a sufficient cooling system you can definitely get higher PL1/PL2 numbers.
The 13900HX laptop CPU for example is basically a lower clocked and lower TDP 13900K and you'd think that yeah with that power draw difference the performance would also be pretty big.
13900K Vs 7950X:
https://youtu.be/kTroSyZEUw8
13900HX Vs 7945HX:
https://youtu.be/mdWAfPfYTnU
In Cinebench R23 for example the 13900K scored just over 40K, a stock 13900HX about 30-31K and a power draw of 200W in this test Vs 450W with the 13900K, not to mention the laptop CPU ran cooler.
Yeah the 13900K is about 33% faster at over twice the power draw and with the right tuning you can definitely push both CPUs harder, maybe more so the 13900HX.
With tuning I got my 13900HX to hit and keep a sustained 130-140W in R23 and got 34.5K as a 10 minute run:
https://imgur.com/hZfoTxD
So yeah I'm not too concerned about manufacturers power draw figures.
He clearly has no idea about ipc improvements, probably thinks a skylake core is just a little slower than an alder lake P core when in reality it matches the E cores
Graphics cards in general haven't made leaps and bounds in progress and development for half a decade beyond DLSS/Framegen/AI stuff. The VRAM issue is just artificial to screw the customers over.
Exactly. My former mid range laptop has a 6 GB GTX 1060 released in 2017. It has the same amount of VRAM as the most expensive desktop GPU in 2015 (the 980 Ti). The desktop RTX 3090 with 24 GB VRAM launched in 2020. Could you imagine if mid-range laptop GPUs came with 24 GB of VRAM in 2022?
The 3090 cost over double the 980ti. It was sort of a level above, more akin to a Titan. It'd be more like if laptops now had 10GB or 12GB of VRAM like the 3080 and ti... which they probably should.
If you want to do AI stuff you should get a used 3090 or look for a laptop with the 16GB 3080/3080ti. The 3090 is really nice for that sort of stuff.
2.5x-3x performance difference over 6 years isn't bad at all.
CPU performance increase in comparison has been about 3x-3.5x in multi core performance and about 2x in single core performance.
DLSS 3 and frame gen has also helped in doubling the performance in some cases, so that could also effectively 5-6x the performance of a 1060. Not to mention that the current 4000 series is the most power efficient that we have seen GPUs get in recent times.
I just checked prices. For 999$, you can get an Acer Nitro 16 with 1TB SSD, a 4060, 16GB RAM and a Ryzen 7840HS processor. This laptop will do circles around your G15. The performance difference would be enormous both on CPU and GPU output. I don't understand why you got stuck at VRAM amount and the actual clock frequency of the cores. Boost clock frequencies don't mean anything anymore. Your i7 has what, 4 actual cores (*8 with HT*)? These days there are 24 core mobile processors with 8 performance cores (which you don't have) and 16 efficiency cores (which you don't have). They are also built on more efficient process nodes, meaning their power consumption vs. what you get out of them is through the roof.
If you want more, you may wait for the 50-series GPUs. They will be revealed at the end of the year + the first models will be shown in CES 2025.
i7-8750H. It was the one released right after Ryzen launched and Intel panicked so they slapped on two extra cores to call it a day making 6 in total. It looks like your suggested laptop has two more CPU cores (8 vs. 6), slightly less total disk space (1.25 TB vs 1 TB albeit 100% SSD vs. a hybrid combo), 2 GB more VRAM, and the same amount of RAM.
I agree CPU is the largest improvement of the lot, but outside certain highly parallelizable tasks CPU is unlikely to be a bottleneck.
>It looks like your suggested laptop has two more CPU cores (8 vs. 6), slightly less total disk space (1.25 TB vs 1 TB albeit 100% SSD vs. a hybrid combo), 2 GB more VRAM, and the same amount of RAM.
You're looking purely at the marketing numbers here. But its far more than that.
Just CPU architecture alone is leaps and bounds better with a current gen i5 (13450HX) likely to be at least 3x as powerful as your CPU. That's not to mention RAM speeds. While capacity is the same, RAM speed and latency is much better with DDR4 and even faster now with DDR5. SSD as well. You'd be using a mid range Gen 3 at best while a high end Gen 3 is twice as fast, and some even comes with better Gen 4 nowadays.
As for GPU. Your 1060 when it came out barely does 60 FPS at medium- high settings. A current gen 4060 will play current AAA games (unoptimized as they are) at or way over 60, very high settings.
Dude, 7840HS destroys i7 8th gen. Maybe just check the benchmarks. Number of cores isn't as important as it used to be. Intel's hybrid architecture makes it seem like they've got way more cores, but on performance mode even the present i7 uses it's 8 P cores and not the E cores.
Do you understand ipc improvements and architectural differences?
Same core but higher performance has already happened many times. Such as ryzen 7 1700x and 7800x
Same amout of core, but the performance is wayy better.
16gb ram is still enough for casual gaming on laptop.
You're not pushing 8k or anything. This goes for vram also. More than 12 is already enough for now.
With 1200$, ofc you're not gonna get the newest stuff.
Especially highest end features.
" my 95 miata has the same 4 tires daves 2024 corvette has ofc they go the same speed!" (while in reality daves 4 tires are spinning much much faster.) lol. basically op the 6 cores in your pc would only take 2 MAYBE 3 (and thats pushing it) modern Intel OR amd cores to do the same thing in a given time frame. id bet today's 4core8 thread 12100 i3 is even faster. and thats 12th gen p cores.
The 1080 Ti is still pretty good today (it's no longer the best obviously but still comfortably mid range) and it came out in 2017. It has a decent amount of VRAM (11 GB) but consumes a lot more power and lacks DLSS and ray tracing which will impact it heavily in some games.
You're right in some aspects and wrong in others. Modern cpu and gpu architecture compared to 6 years ago is leaps and bounds better. Ssd speed have increased significantly as well. My 3070ti laptop smashes the 1060 laptop variant. That 1060 is looking at low settings on new games to hit 60fps at 1080p. Mine will run cyberpunk 2077 with ray tracing set to ultra and a mixture of high and low settings with ray reconstruction on and hits 55ish fps with dlss set to performance in 1440p. Which is perfectly playable and significantly better visually in every aspect. You gotta dig a little deeper past marketing numbers. I do agree that vram should have been increased.
The rate of progress is actually quite a bit faster. Your CPU isn’t even all that fast and is easily beaten by ultrabook CPUs for thin and light non gaming laptops. The GTX 1060 today is low end and is slower than a 3050 GPU.
I don’t think you realize how much faster gaming laptops are now. Come next year and the 50 series as well as AMD Zen 5 CPUs, there should be even more increases in speed making your laptop even more irrelevant.
The only main issue I have is VRAM
I bought a omen 16 laptop, which had blackscreen issues after just 4 months… had my previous 400€ laptop for like 5+ years without any problems but the 1.6k one breaks after just 4 months? Like wtf
Yeah I kind of feel you, especially with vram. I’m hoping the 50 series laptop cards can achieve the same level of vram as their desktop counterparts. A laptop 4070 with 8gb of vram vs a desktop 4070 with 12 makes a huge difference.
It was on the high end of mid range when released (especially the 6 GB version) with only the 1070 and 1080 being better. Now it is in the high end of low end.
If you compare that i7 to your old i7 it'd smash its head in. It'd be more than 4 times more powerful lol it's not all about clock speed. A 4060 rn would destroy your old 1060 laptop
Dude I just got a legion slim 5 for like 1100$ after tax. It was on promo but even then it’s like 1500$, just 300$ more than what you have. 1.2K for a laptop with a 1060 is actually fucking criminal but that’s just how laptops are
Thats why i upgrade from the highest end and i upgrade every 2 generations to feel like ive made some progress. My previous laptop had 9980hk with a 2080 mq it was good but i felt its limitations lately especially with vr, so i upgraded to the 13900hx with a 4090. To be fair i think ill hold on to this laptop more than just 2 generations because of how powerful the 4090 laptop is (between desktop 3090-3090Ti) while the 2080mq was right on a gtx 1070 which even when the laptop first came out, wasnt all that impressive, especially for how expensive the 2080 laptops were. Besides Cpu and Gpu which does get notable upgrades each generation, ram and storage manufacturers are more invested in improving ram and storage speed rather than aimlessly increasing size.
I'm my opinion the real issue has been the last 2 years and on the GPU side. Ampere was a pretty big improvement over turing. Lovelace... Stagnation apart from fake frames and slotting in a "new" pricing tier to gouge consumers.
Zen 3 was a great improvement over zen 2/Intel. Alder lake was competitive. Zen 4 is an improvement in efficiency and I expect zen 5 to be an improvement in bother efficiency and performance. Intel has largely pulled a sandy bridge since alder lake launched but IMO laptop CPU is in a great place.
You said you need your laptop for AI workloads, if so, then this year's new refreshed CPUs are really good for you since they have improved NPUs, which are dedicated chips for AI workloads and Ryzen 8845HS and 8945HS have been rated very highly for AI workloads. Also, power efficiency has improved a lot from back then and so has the actual CPU power itself. Ryzen 8845HS (or even the 7840HS) have the most powerful iGPU on any CPU till date, and you can even get away with playing Cyberpunk 2077 at 1080p low settings on it. Can you imagine? Playing Cyberpunk on integrated graphics lol? AMD says that the Radeon 780M integrated graphics are almost the same as a GTX 1650 laptop GPU in terms of performance. That is an immense leap IMO. The main problem I have with the 40 series cards is that the 4050, 4060 and 4070 don't reach anywhere near their advertised wattage when put under stress, they are advertised to be 140w cards with dynamic boost but they all max out around 100w or so. That is kind of disappointing.
The NPUs are kind of useless for local image/video generation, training, and LLMs. My understanding is that they're more like the AI processing units that have been on phones for a long time already and are supposed to help with specialized tasks like voice recognition and real-time image processing rather than generative AI:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/192zpqa/will\_an\_amd\_npu\_and\_nvidia\_gpu\_work\_together\_for/](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/192zpqa/will_an_amd_npu_and_nvidia_gpu_work_together_for/)
[https://www.pcworld.com/article/2199565/ai-reality-check-new-npus-dont-matter-as-much-as-youd-think.html](https://www.pcworld.com/article/2199565/ai-reality-check-new-npus-dont-matter-as-much-as-youd-think.html)
And Nvidia is king right now because most AI applications depend on CUDA. AMD has something called ROCm which is similar and has some degree of support but it is nowhere near as ubiquitous and not very easy to use. And Intel GPUs are pretty much useless for AI.
Because it's literally a physics problem. You can only cool so many watts given the area available for cooling (heatsinks) so it's going to be power limited.
Won't change till TSMC takes their top off.
Edit: considerably less money got me a 6700xt+5800x+b550 than even a 1650 laptop.
But yeh if you don't know how to boot to safe mode, use DDU, using actual fan/voltage controls...prebuilts are safer for you (even a prebuilt desktop would be better than a laptop)
You can get a Dell G16 right now with a 13900HX + 4070 + 32GB for under 1200$
CPU wise, I am assuming you got a "8750H" which the 13900HX has 92% higher single core performance and over 353% multi core performance.
That is not a little amount at all.
GPU wise, only 2gb extra vram but around 2.8x-3x the raw GPU performance for gaming, not counting DLSS & Frame generation
There are still major QA issues and the usual gripes with Nvidia and whatnot (particularly pricing) but the build quality and performance of so many PC laptops these days is so relatively good to like 8 years ago (i guess there was razer, but the price was high and customer support in the gutter. AW could get super tanky and heavy)
Incremental improvements to gaming laptops, which are within the price range of many middle class people, do not keep me up at night in a state of disappointment. Celery, though, that crunchy green crap definitely disappoints me. It's horrible.
I dropped 600 on a Lenovo LoQ 15" which is an absolute powerhouse compared to 600 dollar laptops from 5 years ago.
In 2015 the standard gaming laptop was easily 1k minimum. You can spend about half of that and get more power nowadays.
Within the last 5 years alone this technology nearly exceeded the general use capabilities.
What are you trying to do? Play video games or render your own video game?
Laptop tech has grown so fast that people expect PC tower quality for 1 grand. Just take a minute and think about this.
so you have a 4 core 8 threads i7 which almost never reached 4.1ghz, a gtx 1060 (a bit more than 4 tflops) and 16 gb ddr4 (2400)
now, you're getting an i7 reach 5ghz with something like 12 cores, 20 threads, a rtx 4060 (a little less than 12 tflops with dlss 3) and 16gb of ddr5 5200
the cpu jump in laptop is actually insane as not only the core count and frequency increased but also the IPC (instructions per cycle)
the GPU upgrade is way more moderate due to the fact laptops cooling isn't easy and they actually gimped a bit on the vram side (the 4090 mobile is great but, these laptops are expensive)
but performances wise your laptop is totally obsolete
40 series mobile gpus are actually a massive improvement in performance and efficiency. A 4080 mobile beats the 3080 mobile by almost 60%. Laptops have had more progress then the desktop market imo
well, a laptop's i5-12500h can win desktop i7-11700k in R23 single core performance by 5%, i would say is a huge leap,and rtx 4060 with dlss3.0 almost equal 2070s desktop performance， i accept that as a big jump
Bro I don't know what your disappointed at only thing I'm disappointed at is the price I took a 2070 max q laptop 6 core at best I could do ray tracing low with it maxed at 1080p ain't no way it can compare to a 4080 and a 13900hx that's stomps it btw. I think progress is right where it's supposed to be 12gb of vram is insane and 16gb for a 4090 plus last gen I believe some won't even run windows 11. I can't wait for 24gb in laptops or something beefier if it's the right price that is . The only issue is all laptops even last gen degrade and they won't last forever unless you have soldering skills and access to the physical chips them selfs and capacitors and a reballing machine for the GPU/CPU. It won't run in 4k res either with most aaa games . Also vram doesn't really matter as long as you have 8gb but honestly that's if you use it the newer gen gpus will be much faster. Unless you use 3000 series and up . Still won't compare to the 4000 series tbh .
I think you need to give them a try, the proof will be in the pudding.
I have an Alienware 15 with a GTX1070, my steamdeck runs games better so big improvements have been made
And my friends Alienware with RTX3070 Majorly out performs the 2070super desktop it replaced.
To be fair XX60 is low-mid tier and always has been, you really shouldn't expect to get much for the price you got that laptop for. On top of that, laptop/gpu prices haven't fully recovered since crypto or the pandemic so you get even less for your money so yeh, you're getting less for you're money in comparison but performance has gone up considerably.
There was a time when xx60 was mid-high tier before xx90 was a thing and the best was xx80. I think the GTX 1060 was mid-tier bordering on the bottom end of high-tier since only xx70 and xx80 were above it. Once the 3000 series came and the 3090 was the best you could get, the xx60 became the new xx50. Nvidia shifted every model down a notch so that the xx80 was no longer the best and the xx70 was no longer the second best.
>Once the 3000 series came and the 3090 was the best you could get, the xx60 became the new xx50.
That's not true. When the 3000 series came, the generational leap was still as expected. A xx60 card performed as well as better than the previous xx70 gen card. Jarrod's Tech (and a few other reviewers) showed the 3060 handily outperforming the 2070.
It was only with the 4000 series that the generational improvements seemed lackluster (albeit still present). And its because that its lackluster, that's why people complaint. Like a 4050 is only on par with a 3060 or sometimes behind, while a 4060 is only less than 10-12% better instead of the usual 20+%. While a 4060 just about become on par with 3070
I do feel like they've don't this a little bit each generation, more so in some than others. I opted for a GTX970 over a GTX1060 and I feel I made the right decision. Since then the 2060 and 3060 certainly hasn't been worth buying. Weirdly 4060 seems better but that might just be the 3 or 4 generations of uplift.
Ok so this is quite a good point you’ve raised, look I’m no expert when it comes to how companies work but amd and intel would rather focus on cpu efficiency and battery life rather than power. They could easily make more and more powerful cpus but they’d rather make the cpus more efficient year on year with little to no performance boosts rather than. More powerful cpus hope that helped. 😁
Man, my 11800h get 2x the cinebench multicore score and 40% higher singlecore than the 8750h. 3 gen difference and roughly the same power consumption
My 3060 mobile get 2.7x timespy gpu score than a 1060 mobile. 2 gen difference and rougly 50% higher power consumption
Paid the laptop 1050€ in January 2022 on Amazon.it
I think you are tripping
https://youtu.be/s2NBS9tkwCA This is a 7300HQ/1050 ti laptop, bit weaker hardware yes than what you've currently got but even compared to a RTX 3060 6 GB VRAM GPU like the legion 5 in the video, that legion is a good step up in performance from your current laptop. As for VRAM, whilst you mention 16 GB VRAM, the only Nvidia GPUs with this amount of VRAM is the RTX 3080 16 GB, 3080 ti and 4090 mobile GPUs. Worth noting that the RTX 4090 laptop GPU for example is based off the RTX 4080 desktop card and 24 GB VRAM GPUs in laptops I don't expect any time soon, particularly given the lack of overall competition Nvidia has in the mobile GPU space. You could look at the used market for 3080 16 GB 165W laptops like the Legion 7 or possibly 3080 ti 16 GB 175W VRAM laptops. Worth noting that GPU progress in the last few years isn't as big as what it once was in the mobile space for definite in the mid range segment, really the high end stuff is where the big performance uplifts are. CPU performance uplifts though I'd say is good in the past few years though.
CPU performance increases have been a bit more noticeable but it's also largely due to Intel sitting on different variations of Sandy Bridge for almost a decade without any competition. AMD brought competition to the CPU space in the form of Ryzen but despite the efforts of AMD and Intel, no such thing seems to have happened in the GPU space. :(
I will just mention that the likes of the i7 8750H in your laptop or similar compared to today's CPUs isn't just a few more cores at higher clocks, there's improvement in regards to efficiency (Newer nodes, 7 and 10 nm Vs the infamous 14 nm of old), more cache etc too. Taking a 16 Core/22 thread Core ultra 7 155H or 20 core/28 thread 14700HX relative to the likes of the 8750H, you're looking at over twice the L3 cache over your current CPU and a big overall improvement with CPU performance. https://www.notebookcheck.net/i7-8750H-vs-Ultra-7-155H-vs-i7-14700HX_9576_16906_17168.247596.0.html
...45-60W Vs desktop Intel's at 150-250w+ See what I'm saying? That perf-power isn't a linear drop but it's def big
https://www.notebookcheck.net/i9-13900HX-vs-i9-13900K_14659_14625.247596.0.html 13900HX specs: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/232171/intel-core-i9-13900hx-processor-36m-cache-up-to-5-40-ghz.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/230496/intel-core-i913900k-processor-36m-cache-up-to-5-80-ghz/specifications.html The 13900HX laptop CPU has a base TDP of 55W with a maximum supposed short term TDP of 157W but with a sufficient cooling system you can definitely get higher PL1/PL2 numbers. The 13900HX laptop CPU for example is basically a lower clocked and lower TDP 13900K and you'd think that yeah with that power draw difference the performance would also be pretty big. 13900K Vs 7950X: https://youtu.be/kTroSyZEUw8 13900HX Vs 7945HX: https://youtu.be/mdWAfPfYTnU In Cinebench R23 for example the 13900K scored just over 40K, a stock 13900HX about 30-31K and a power draw of 200W in this test Vs 450W with the 13900K, not to mention the laptop CPU ran cooler. Yeah the 13900K is about 33% faster at over twice the power draw and with the right tuning you can definitely push both CPUs harder, maybe more so the 13900HX. With tuning I got my 13900HX to hit and keep a sustained 130-140W in R23 and got 34.5K as a 10 minute run: https://imgur.com/hZfoTxD So yeah I'm not too concerned about manufacturers power draw figures.
Gpu had the biggest improvement in recent years with ground breaking features like dlss, frame gen and fsr. Especially the 40 series was a giant leap.
Bro said that todays cpus just clock a little higher and have a few more clocks.
He clearly has no idea about ipc improvements, probably thinks a skylake core is just a little slower than an alder lake P core when in reality it matches the E cores
Graphics cards in general haven't made leaps and bounds in progress and development for half a decade beyond DLSS/Framegen/AI stuff. The VRAM issue is just artificial to screw the customers over.
Exactly. My former mid range laptop has a 6 GB GTX 1060 released in 2017. It has the same amount of VRAM as the most expensive desktop GPU in 2015 (the 980 Ti). The desktop RTX 3090 with 24 GB VRAM launched in 2020. Could you imagine if mid-range laptop GPUs came with 24 GB of VRAM in 2022?
The 3090 cost over double the 980ti. It was sort of a level above, more akin to a Titan. It'd be more like if laptops now had 10GB or 12GB of VRAM like the 3080 and ti... which they probably should. If you want to do AI stuff you should get a used 3090 or look for a laptop with the 16GB 3080/3080ti. The 3090 is really nice for that sort of stuff.
What can you do with that amounts of vram if you don't have the power to compute and utilize them?
Run HQ texture packs, usually load more mods and play on larger maps in games. ie 7 Days to Die etc.
Just because it has same vram doesn't mean shit. Even the 2050 with just 4gb vram outperforms the 1060.
your fucking crazy if you think a 4060 isn't leagues above a 1060.
You’re*
2.5x-3x performance difference over 6 years isn't bad at all. CPU performance increase in comparison has been about 3x-3.5x in multi core performance and about 2x in single core performance. DLSS 3 and frame gen has also helped in doubling the performance in some cases, so that could also effectively 5-6x the performance of a 1060. Not to mention that the current 4000 series is the most power efficient that we have seen GPUs get in recent times.
I just checked prices. For 999$, you can get an Acer Nitro 16 with 1TB SSD, a 4060, 16GB RAM and a Ryzen 7840HS processor. This laptop will do circles around your G15. The performance difference would be enormous both on CPU and GPU output. I don't understand why you got stuck at VRAM amount and the actual clock frequency of the cores. Boost clock frequencies don't mean anything anymore. Your i7 has what, 4 actual cores (*8 with HT*)? These days there are 24 core mobile processors with 8 performance cores (which you don't have) and 16 efficiency cores (which you don't have). They are also built on more efficient process nodes, meaning their power consumption vs. what you get out of them is through the roof. If you want more, you may wait for the 50-series GPUs. They will be revealed at the end of the year + the first models will be shown in CES 2025.
no nitro its a good option
i7-8750H. It was the one released right after Ryzen launched and Intel panicked so they slapped on two extra cores to call it a day making 6 in total. It looks like your suggested laptop has two more CPU cores (8 vs. 6), slightly less total disk space (1.25 TB vs 1 TB albeit 100% SSD vs. a hybrid combo), 2 GB more VRAM, and the same amount of RAM. I agree CPU is the largest improvement of the lot, but outside certain highly parallelizable tasks CPU is unlikely to be a bottleneck.
>It looks like your suggested laptop has two more CPU cores (8 vs. 6), slightly less total disk space (1.25 TB vs 1 TB albeit 100% SSD vs. a hybrid combo), 2 GB more VRAM, and the same amount of RAM. You're looking purely at the marketing numbers here. But its far more than that. Just CPU architecture alone is leaps and bounds better with a current gen i5 (13450HX) likely to be at least 3x as powerful as your CPU. That's not to mention RAM speeds. While capacity is the same, RAM speed and latency is much better with DDR4 and even faster now with DDR5. SSD as well. You'd be using a mid range Gen 3 at best while a high end Gen 3 is twice as fast, and some even comes with better Gen 4 nowadays. As for GPU. Your 1060 when it came out barely does 60 FPS at medium- high settings. A current gen 4060 will play current AAA games (unoptimized as they are) at or way over 60, very high settings.
Dude, 7840HS destroys i7 8th gen. Maybe just check the benchmarks. Number of cores isn't as important as it used to be. Intel's hybrid architecture makes it seem like they've got way more cores, but on performance mode even the present i7 uses it's 8 P cores and not the E cores.
Do you understand ipc improvements and architectural differences? Same core but higher performance has already happened many times. Such as ryzen 7 1700x and 7800x Same amout of core, but the performance is wayy better. 16gb ram is still enough for casual gaming on laptop. You're not pushing 8k or anything. This goes for vram also. More than 12 is already enough for now. With 1200$, ofc you're not gonna get the newest stuff. Especially highest end features.
" my 95 miata has the same 4 tires daves 2024 corvette has ofc they go the same speed!" (while in reality daves 4 tires are spinning much much faster.) lol. basically op the 6 cores in your pc would only take 2 MAYBE 3 (and thats pushing it) modern Intel OR amd cores to do the same thing in a given time frame. id bet today's 4core8 thread 12100 i3 is even faster. and thats 12th gen p cores.
How are yoy going to compare anything today with something pre.covid
The 1080 Ti is still pretty good today (it's no longer the best obviously but still comfortably mid range) and it came out in 2017. It has a decent amount of VRAM (11 GB) but consumes a lot more power and lacks DLSS and ray tracing which will impact it heavily in some games.
I just got the 4090 I don’t wanna see progression right now. I want to be happy for sometime !
You're right in some aspects and wrong in others. Modern cpu and gpu architecture compared to 6 years ago is leaps and bounds better. Ssd speed have increased significantly as well. My 3070ti laptop smashes the 1060 laptop variant. That 1060 is looking at low settings on new games to hit 60fps at 1080p. Mine will run cyberpunk 2077 with ray tracing set to ultra and a mixture of high and low settings with ray reconstruction on and hits 55ish fps with dlss set to performance in 1440p. Which is perfectly playable and significantly better visually in every aspect. You gotta dig a little deeper past marketing numbers. I do agree that vram should have been increased.
The rate of progress is actually quite a bit faster. Your CPU isn’t even all that fast and is easily beaten by ultrabook CPUs for thin and light non gaming laptops. The GTX 1060 today is low end and is slower than a 3050 GPU. I don’t think you realize how much faster gaming laptops are now. Come next year and the 50 series as well as AMD Zen 5 CPUs, there should be even more increases in speed making your laptop even more irrelevant. The only main issue I have is VRAM
I bought a omen 16 laptop, which had blackscreen issues after just 4 months… had my previous 400€ laptop for like 5+ years without any problems but the 1.6k one breaks after just 4 months? Like wtf
Yeah I kind of feel you, especially with vram. I’m hoping the 50 series laptop cards can achieve the same level of vram as their desktop counterparts. A laptop 4070 with 8gb of vram vs a desktop 4070 with 12 makes a huge difference.
No. My legion 5 pro performs better than the $3k desktop I built and then sold during Covid.
The 1060 is a low end entry level card.
It was on the high end of mid range when released (especially the 6 GB version) with only the 1070 and 1080 being better. Now it is in the high end of low end.
If you compare that i7 to your old i7 it'd smash its head in. It'd be more than 4 times more powerful lol it's not all about clock speed. A 4060 rn would destroy your old 1060 laptop
Dude I just got a legion slim 5 for like 1100$ after tax. It was on promo but even then it’s like 1500$, just 300$ more than what you have. 1.2K for a laptop with a 1060 is actually fucking criminal but that’s just how laptops are
It was a good price back when I bought it in 2018/2019. Of course $1.2k for a GTX 1060 today would be a really bad deal.
Thats why i upgrade from the highest end and i upgrade every 2 generations to feel like ive made some progress. My previous laptop had 9980hk with a 2080 mq it was good but i felt its limitations lately especially with vr, so i upgraded to the 13900hx with a 4090. To be fair i think ill hold on to this laptop more than just 2 generations because of how powerful the 4090 laptop is (between desktop 3090-3090Ti) while the 2080mq was right on a gtx 1070 which even when the laptop first came out, wasnt all that impressive, especially for how expensive the 2080 laptops were. Besides Cpu and Gpu which does get notable upgrades each generation, ram and storage manufacturers are more invested in improving ram and storage speed rather than aimlessly increasing size.
Wait for the 50 series cards which come out end of the year.
I'm my opinion the real issue has been the last 2 years and on the GPU side. Ampere was a pretty big improvement over turing. Lovelace... Stagnation apart from fake frames and slotting in a "new" pricing tier to gouge consumers. Zen 3 was a great improvement over zen 2/Intel. Alder lake was competitive. Zen 4 is an improvement in efficiency and I expect zen 5 to be an improvement in bother efficiency and performance. Intel has largely pulled a sandy bridge since alder lake launched but IMO laptop CPU is in a great place.
You said you need your laptop for AI workloads, if so, then this year's new refreshed CPUs are really good for you since they have improved NPUs, which are dedicated chips for AI workloads and Ryzen 8845HS and 8945HS have been rated very highly for AI workloads. Also, power efficiency has improved a lot from back then and so has the actual CPU power itself. Ryzen 8845HS (or even the 7840HS) have the most powerful iGPU on any CPU till date, and you can even get away with playing Cyberpunk 2077 at 1080p low settings on it. Can you imagine? Playing Cyberpunk on integrated graphics lol? AMD says that the Radeon 780M integrated graphics are almost the same as a GTX 1650 laptop GPU in terms of performance. That is an immense leap IMO. The main problem I have with the 40 series cards is that the 4050, 4060 and 4070 don't reach anywhere near their advertised wattage when put under stress, they are advertised to be 140w cards with dynamic boost but they all max out around 100w or so. That is kind of disappointing.
The NPUs are kind of useless for local image/video generation, training, and LLMs. My understanding is that they're more like the AI processing units that have been on phones for a long time already and are supposed to help with specialized tasks like voice recognition and real-time image processing rather than generative AI: [https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/192zpqa/will\_an\_amd\_npu\_and\_nvidia\_gpu\_work\_together\_for/](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/192zpqa/will_an_amd_npu_and_nvidia_gpu_work_together_for/) [https://www.pcworld.com/article/2199565/ai-reality-check-new-npus-dont-matter-as-much-as-youd-think.html](https://www.pcworld.com/article/2199565/ai-reality-check-new-npus-dont-matter-as-much-as-youd-think.html) And Nvidia is king right now because most AI applications depend on CUDA. AMD has something called ROCm which is similar and has some degree of support but it is nowhere near as ubiquitous and not very easy to use. And Intel GPUs are pretty much useless for AI.
Because it's literally a physics problem. You can only cool so many watts given the area available for cooling (heatsinks) so it's going to be power limited. Won't change till TSMC takes their top off. Edit: considerably less money got me a 6700xt+5800x+b550 than even a 1650 laptop. But yeh if you don't know how to boot to safe mode, use DDU, using actual fan/voltage controls...prebuilts are safer for you (even a prebuilt desktop would be better than a laptop)
You can get a Dell G16 right now with a 13900HX + 4070 + 32GB for under 1200$ CPU wise, I am assuming you got a "8750H" which the 13900HX has 92% higher single core performance and over 353% multi core performance. That is not a little amount at all. GPU wise, only 2gb extra vram but around 2.8x-3x the raw GPU performance for gaming, not counting DLSS & Frame generation
There are still major QA issues and the usual gripes with Nvidia and whatnot (particularly pricing) but the build quality and performance of so many PC laptops these days is so relatively good to like 8 years ago (i guess there was razer, but the price was high and customer support in the gutter. AW could get super tanky and heavy)
You have no idea what you're talking about
Incremental improvements to gaming laptops, which are within the price range of many middle class people, do not keep me up at night in a state of disappointment. Celery, though, that crunchy green crap definitely disappoints me. It's horrible.
I dropped 600 on a Lenovo LoQ 15" which is an absolute powerhouse compared to 600 dollar laptops from 5 years ago. In 2015 the standard gaming laptop was easily 1k minimum. You can spend about half of that and get more power nowadays. Within the last 5 years alone this technology nearly exceeded the general use capabilities. What are you trying to do? Play video games or render your own video game? Laptop tech has grown so fast that people expect PC tower quality for 1 grand. Just take a minute and think about this.
the 7945hx scores 33000 on r23. the same as my 14700kf desktop. what you smoking op? laptops are crazy good now.
The only ones disappointed are people like you who have no fucking clue about technology.
"My toyota has 4 wheels. So does the Bugatti. They should perform the same"
so you have a 4 core 8 threads i7 which almost never reached 4.1ghz, a gtx 1060 (a bit more than 4 tflops) and 16 gb ddr4 (2400) now, you're getting an i7 reach 5ghz with something like 12 cores, 20 threads, a rtx 4060 (a little less than 12 tflops with dlss 3) and 16gb of ddr5 5200 the cpu jump in laptop is actually insane as not only the core count and frequency increased but also the IPC (instructions per cycle) the GPU upgrade is way more moderate due to the fact laptops cooling isn't easy and they actually gimped a bit on the vram side (the 4090 mobile is great but, these laptops are expensive) but performances wise your laptop is totally obsolete
40 series mobile gpus are actually a massive improvement in performance and efficiency. A 4080 mobile beats the 3080 mobile by almost 60%. Laptops have had more progress then the desktop market imo
well, a laptop's i5-12500h can win desktop i7-11700k in R23 single core performance by 5%, i would say is a huge leap,and rtx 4060 with dlss3.0 almost equal 2070s desktop performance， i accept that as a big jump
Bro I don't know what your disappointed at only thing I'm disappointed at is the price I took a 2070 max q laptop 6 core at best I could do ray tracing low with it maxed at 1080p ain't no way it can compare to a 4080 and a 13900hx that's stomps it btw. I think progress is right where it's supposed to be 12gb of vram is insane and 16gb for a 4090 plus last gen I believe some won't even run windows 11. I can't wait for 24gb in laptops or something beefier if it's the right price that is . The only issue is all laptops even last gen degrade and they won't last forever unless you have soldering skills and access to the physical chips them selfs and capacitors and a reballing machine for the GPU/CPU. It won't run in 4k res either with most aaa games . Also vram doesn't really matter as long as you have 8gb but honestly that's if you use it the newer gen gpus will be much faster. Unless you use 3000 series and up . Still won't compare to the 4000 series tbh .
I think you need to give them a try, the proof will be in the pudding. I have an Alienware 15 with a GTX1070, my steamdeck runs games better so big improvements have been made And my friends Alienware with RTX3070 Majorly out performs the 2070super desktop it replaced. To be fair XX60 is low-mid tier and always has been, you really shouldn't expect to get much for the price you got that laptop for. On top of that, laptop/gpu prices haven't fully recovered since crypto or the pandemic so you get even less for your money so yeh, you're getting less for you're money in comparison but performance has gone up considerably.
There was a time when xx60 was mid-high tier before xx90 was a thing and the best was xx80. I think the GTX 1060 was mid-tier bordering on the bottom end of high-tier since only xx70 and xx80 were above it. Once the 3000 series came and the 3090 was the best you could get, the xx60 became the new xx50. Nvidia shifted every model down a notch so that the xx80 was no longer the best and the xx70 was no longer the second best.
>Once the 3000 series came and the 3090 was the best you could get, the xx60 became the new xx50. That's not true. When the 3000 series came, the generational leap was still as expected. A xx60 card performed as well as better than the previous xx70 gen card. Jarrod's Tech (and a few other reviewers) showed the 3060 handily outperforming the 2070. It was only with the 4000 series that the generational improvements seemed lackluster (albeit still present). And its because that its lackluster, that's why people complaint. Like a 4050 is only on par with a 3060 or sometimes behind, while a 4060 is only less than 10-12% better instead of the usual 20+%. While a 4060 just about become on par with 3070
I do feel like they've don't this a little bit each generation, more so in some than others. I opted for a GTX970 over a GTX1060 and I feel I made the right decision. Since then the 2060 and 3060 certainly hasn't been worth buying. Weirdly 4060 seems better but that might just be the 3 or 4 generations of uplift.
Ok so this is quite a good point you’ve raised, look I’m no expert when it comes to how companies work but amd and intel would rather focus on cpu efficiency and battery life rather than power. They could easily make more and more powerful cpus but they’d rather make the cpus more efficient year on year with little to no performance boosts rather than. More powerful cpus hope that helped. 😁
Man, my 11800h get 2x the cinebench multicore score and 40% higher singlecore than the 8750h. 3 gen difference and roughly the same power consumption My 3060 mobile get 2.7x timespy gpu score than a 1060 mobile. 2 gen difference and rougly 50% higher power consumption Paid the laptop 1050€ in January 2022 on Amazon.it I think you are tripping