I am seriously considering going back to desktop computers

Post by numpad0 » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 4:33 AM UTC

auggierose wrote: post #174

Exmoor wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are obviously many ways to do this comparison, but going off Wikipedia's pricing for most recent Intel processors. Their highest end mobile processor is currently the i7-1185G7 which apparently retails for $426. Let's compare it with the closest desktop processor to that price, the i9-10900 ($438). Cores (Threads): 4(8) vs. 10(20). Base Freq: 3.0ghz (At 28w TDP) vs. 2.8ghz. Max All Core Turbo: 4.3ghz vs. 4.8ghz…

A MacBook Pro can have an i9 and 8 cores, isn't that better than the i7-1185G7?

Post by fragsworth » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 4:35 AM UTC

suifbwish wrote: post #400

WalterBright wrote: post #16

I prefer a desktop because: 1. I like big, big monitors. 2. I prefer a full size keyboard. 3. I prefer a separate mouse. 4. I prefer big freaking disk drives installed. 5. I put the desktop under my desk, and with a wireless keyboard and wireless mouse, there is much less of a snarl on my desk. 6. The desktop has an optical drive I still use. 7. The desktop has lots of USB ports and they're all in use. 8. I can repla…

I will never do a wireless keyboard. The idea of trusting a company to properly encrypt my wireless keystrokes is laughable. My security is far more important than cable management thanks.

Post by fragsworth » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 4:44 AM UTC

XCSme wrote: post #353

titzer wrote: post #248

What's crazy to me is how insanely overspec'd mobile devices are for what they deliver. If you went back in time and told 1999 me the following: I'll give you a computer with the following: * 256GB of solid-state storage * 6 CPUs @ 3+GHz * 8GB of RAM * Weighs only 200 grams * Battery-powered, lasts 5+ hours * 1440 x 3168 resolution display I would have been absolutely gobsmacked. Such a machine absolutely outclasses…

For me it's a mystery how phone specs are so good, but their performance is so bad. Always freezing, crashing, long load times, etc. I have an old PSP (PlayStation Portable) and whenever I turn it on I'm amazed at how fast and lag-free it is. This probably proves that the problem is most likely the software, not the hardware.

Post by numpad0 » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 4:45 AM UTC

RasmusLarsen wrote: post #177

nvarsj wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trend in laptops has been for longer battery life and less heat. Since there haven't been any major breakthroughs in battery technology or mobile processor power (at least from Intel), this means lower power for processors and generally lower performance in general. Almost all laptops are using ultra low voltage Intel chips. And even the ones that don't, except for high end gaming laptops, thermally throttle ALL…

What example configuration machine from a decade ago can match (or beat) a current-gen maxed-out Thinkpad or Macbook Pro in raw performance? Those laptops are quite speedy compared to something from 2010

Post by arvinsim » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 4:53 AM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #396

_jjkk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This will be true for a long time - the design constraints are so totally different it would be foolish to use the same design in desktop and laptop systems. The most limiting thing is TDP, which in the highest performance laptop processors is still capped at 45W, whereas a maxed out desktop processor can draw 100W or more. See these tables for i9, for example, compare Coffee-Lake-S (Desktop) with Coffee-Lake-H (Lapt…

> The most limiting thing is TDP, which in the highest performance laptop processors is still capped at 45W, whereas a maxed out desktop processor can draw 100W or more. Maybe a small desktop. My desktop processor is 180W TDP (Threadripper 1950x), while some others are 250W TDP. You can also get a dual-socket workstation, for 2x CPUs (both pulling 200W each). Thermals and power are significantly higher on desktops, i…