Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Framework's first desktop is a strange–but unique–mini ITX gaming PC

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 554 posts

Re: Framework's first desktop is a strange–but unique–mini ITX gaming PC

#511

Post by sureIy »

WXLCKNO wrote: post #491
bheadmaster wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that The Ship of Theseus had all its parts replaced one by one, in a long period of time. If you replace 90% of the ship at the same time (RAM, CPU and Motherboard), then the analogy breaks down.

It's a perfectly understandable analogy unless you nitpick for no reason.

If you kept the sails and rebuilt the boat around them, does it make sense to say it's the same boat?

That's why I said "you can believe your story" while I pointed out it's a very unlikely one.

Re: Framework's first desktop is a strange–but unique–mini ITX gaming PC

#512

Post by joseda-hg »

DeathArrow wrote: post #433
GuB-42 wrote: post #163

It is a weird product for the Framework brand. The pitch for the Framework laptop is that it is repairable/upgradable/modular. Something that is uncommon for laptops nowadays. This is the opposite. Desktops are modular by default, so much is that my computer is like the Ship of Theseus, I never changed it, but upgrade to upgrade, it is a completely different machine than it once was (it started off as a 486!). This o…

It seems that Framework desktop is less modular than regular desktops.

Full size sure, but we already have that, so it doesn't matter

In SFF land?, maybe, but that's already a lot closer to laptops, which is where I expect this to loop back into regular Framework lineup

Re: Framework's first desktop is a strange–but unique–mini ITX gaming PC

#513

Post by remexre »

goosedragons wrote: post #330
rowanG077 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You trade no incidental fan noise and better idle power for ass performance and "too bad this app you used for years doesn't work". I don't think that's even close to a good deal.

Snapdragon X series are far from ass. Most programs work. Even ancient stuff.

Do you have a "benchmark program" for performance and results for it? (e.g. I like to wall-clock measure a clean build of LLVM to approximate the performance on the compute-heavy workloads I run often.)

Re: Framework's first desktop is a strange–but unique–mini ITX gaming PC

#514

Post by aseipp »

kibwen wrote: post #132

Is integrated/non-upgradeable RAM the unavoidable future for all consumer-grade devices? Is there any sort of standard on the horizon that would enable the massive memory bandwidth to compete against the M1-style approach?

Well, you haven't ever been able to upgrade RAM on your GPUs, so the real question is more like: will more consumer-grade devices move towards unified memory designs with single memory pool?

My completely-bullshit opinion is something like "I think it's attractive for a lot of mid-range or lower end SKUs, so you'll see it more frequently." It's attractive because you save a lot of power and components with this kind of design. It would be interesting to see this kind of design (APU) in a socket-able factor too, but who knows. It's also attractive for a certain class of high-end design too (like Grace Hopper), but I think you're going to see RAM sticks for a while yet in the mid-to-very-high-range.

This is completely bullshit because it is based more on vibes and basic technical design points than any kind of market forecasting or anything like that.

Re: Framework's first desktop is a strange–but unique–mini ITX gaming PC

#515

Post by aseipp »

skyyler wrote: post #497
Manabu-eo wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Framework entire brand is to let you upgrade parts on your own, and they said CAMM was technically impossible because signal integrity.

That sounds like an excuse.

You've never been able to upgrade RAM on GPUs for the exact same reasons that Framework is alluding to. That's what's happening here; GPUs have lots of cores, and to keep them feed you need lots of bandwidth to go along with it. All dedicated GPUs come with dedicated memory for this exact reason. Things like traditional "iGPUs" that use DDR can get away with it exactly because they are so small and computationally weak that the limited bandwidth isn't the immediate #1 bottleneck. But Strix Halo is not intended to be a measly iGPU system, so it has different needs.

There just isn't a free lunch here, it's an inherent design tradeoff for these kinds of chips. The CPU is just along for the ride, in this case.

Re: Framework's first desktop is a strange–but unique–mini ITX gaming PC

#516

Post by abracadaniel »

simpaticoder wrote: post #505
spiffytech wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case it helps someone: my Framework had rapid battery drain in suspend. Around 10% per hour. Turns out the Samsung EVO NVMe I installed had really high power draw (I guess it's meant for performance desktops?). I replaced it with a WD Blue and now I lose negligible power while suspended.

Mine shipped with a WD Black, so I'm not hopeful but it's worth considering, if I end up sticking with this hardware.

You could try pulling the drive and then leave it suspended for a day as a test.

Re: Framework's first desktop is a strange–but unique–mini ITX gaming PC

#517

Post by skeaker »

simpaticoder wrote: post #505
spiffytech wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case it helps someone: my Framework had rapid battery drain in suspend. Around 10% per hour. Turns out the Samsung EVO NVMe I installed had really high power draw (I guess it's meant for performance desktops?). I replaced it with a WD Blue and now I lose negligible power while suspended.

Mine shipped with a WD Black, so I'm not hopeful but it's worth considering, if I end up sticking with this hardware.

Curious if you're running Linux, I recall seeing a discussion about there being a bug with that on Framework that causes it to not suspend properly and burn energy.

Re: Framework's first desktop is a strange–but unique–mini ITX gaming PC

#518

Post by tomnipotent »

fragmede wrote: post #389
tomnipotent wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is literally the same product they've been selling with just one more component soldered on (memory). I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it a "pivot".

you're right, it is just one component, but please tell me, how many computers have you used that have no RAM?

What does "having no RAM" have to do with it"

The question is how much different is a motherboard with soldered CPU vs. CPU and memory soldered. You seem to be of the opinion that it's a completely different product category, I'm of the opinion they're more the same than different. I don't remember the last time I didn't upgrade all three components at once.

Re: Framework's first desktop is a strange–but unique–mini ITX gaming PC

#519

Post by rstat1 »

simpaticoder wrote: post #243
rstat1 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had that issue on my batch 5 11th gen. There's an issue with the rechargeable CMOS battery they included (that isn't present on the later 12th and 13th gen) that when it stops taking a charge your laptop stops turning on unless you do some arcane process to reset it. They provide a "repair" kit that's basically a dummy CMOS battery that hooks in to the normal power system that prevents the issue from occurring agai…

>There's an issue with the rechargeable CMOS battery I am aware of the issue as described in [1] and the fix in [2]. However, my support request has gone unanswered for a year, as was my second support request. In addition, I have doubts as to whether this fix (which requires soldering!) will work. I was not aware of an updated BIOS [3], foolishly believing the output of 'fwupdmgr' after following the instructions in…

Just so you know I did the soldering fix and its been working just fine for me, for w/e that's worth to you.

Also you're welcome! They have been pretty hit or miss on pushing updates to LVFS so I absolutely understand why you might not have known.

Re: Framework's first desktop is a strange–but unique–mini ITX gaming PC

#520

Post by fragmede »

tomnipotent wrote: post #518
fragmede wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you're right, it is just one component, but please tell me, how many computers have you used that have no RAM?

What does "having no RAM" have to do with it" The question is how much different is a motherboard with soldered CPU vs. CPU and memory soldered. You seem to be of the opinion that it's a completely different product category, I'm of the opinion they're more the same than different. I don't remember the last time I didn't upgrade all three components at once.

> Is one a lot?

> Depends on the context.

> Dollars, no. Murders, yes.

The point is it's a pretty critical component, so "just one" is doing a lot to downplay how critical a component it is. If we get rid of that one component, you're nowhere. So calling it "just one component" belies how critical a component it is.

> I don't remember the last time I didn't upgrade all three components at once.

Thank you for explaining your perspective. If they're a single component in your mind, and not modular, then no wonder we have such a disconnect.

Post reply on HN