So far you have not given single argument why 12900HK makes sense at all. I have given many. I won't give up until you have some too.
In other words, Intel tried to match AMD's gaming performance using integrated GPU but failed miserably. Intel put best GPU they could on 12900HK, AMD put much better with much lower power consumption. And that's supposed to be "win" for Intel
I was arguing for the entire Intel alder lake lineup… and it’s pretty obvious where you would use it… when you want a laptop that can perform well!So far you have not given single argument why 12900HK makes sense at all. I have given many. I won't give up until you have some too.
Your first comment clearly tells you have absolutely no idea about this:
In other words, Intel tried to match AMD's gaming performance using integrated GPU but failed miserably. Intel put best GPU they could on 12900HK, AMD put much better with much lower power consumption. And that's supposed to be "win" for Intel
It only smokes AMD's mobile APU (not desktop one) and only when Not using integrated graphics.
It is a mobile CPU... why would you be comparing it to an AMD desktop CPU?
You don't need to put desktop CPUs into a laptop... not sure what you're blathering about here... Unless you need ultra-mobility and are willing to sacrifice performance, you go dGPU...
Because "mobile CPU's" are mobile CPU's only because they are called "mobile". Only things that make these "mobile CPU's" mobile are lower power consumption, better integrated graphics and different package.
Once again, desktop CPU is both faster and cheaper. Mobile CPU has only two advantages: 1. better integrated GPU and 2. lower power consumption. Number one doesn't matter with discrete GPU and 2. don't matter when not using battery. Why use mobile CPU then? Well...
and....
you still have time when you want to work unplugged... just nothing too intensive.... hence the ability to ALSO have an igpu !
but you want it to be PORTABLE!
No it doesn’t.... because the majority of people who spend this much will be operating plugged in!
You can call any CPU "mobile", there is no exact definition for mobile CPU.
How many times I have to tell same thing: fast and huge iGPU and iGPU are different things. 12900HK has fast and huge iGPU, 12900K has much slower one. Die sizes are 217 mm2 and 215 mm2, very close same. Guess which one has more performance cores on CPU
Even if it has little more weight it's still portable. And if weight is an issue, then AMD again wins there.
Then desktop CPU's are much better and there is no need for huge iGPU. Essentially you are saying AMD and Intel both made crap.
Mobile - anything that goes in a laptop...
Doesn’t matter... if it’s in a laptop that is expensive (and if you have an AMD 6900 or Intel 12900, it’s gonna be pricy), then you need a dgpu!How many times I have to tell same thing: fast and huge iGPU and iGPU are different things. 12900HK has fast and huge iGPU, 12900K has much slower one. Die sizes are 217 mm2 and 215 mm2, very close same. Guess which one has more performance cores on CPU
no, a mini desktop (unless it’s an all-in-one) is NOT portable - cause you still need to carry the monitor, keyboard, mouse.... only fools carry those... the rest of us buy laptops!
Again - you still want to use your laptop unplugged SOMETIMES - and that’s where the igpu comes in handy... but that’s for light gaming and web browsing, etc... doesn’t matter whether you have AMD or Intel for that...
There you go https://www.msi.com/Laptop/GT76-Titan-10SX
First you say CPU performance is all that matters. Then you say laptop CPU should have huge iGPU so that CPU performance suffers
I talked about laptops here. Hotter CPU = more weight = less portable.
Exactly. So why put fast and huge iGPU for light tasks? Because then CPU performance suffers if keeping die size same. And previously you said CPU performance is everything. Both things (huge iGPU and good CPU performance) same time make no sense at all.
Lol, that was a special edition laptop… and the “desktop cpu” was optional and very expensive… it’s also a couple of years old… it’s the exception, not the rule.
In a VERY rare case - try again!
No, I said if you are paying for an EXPENSIVE laptop - then CPU and GPU performance are important. If you require a top of the line CPU, you almost certainly will require a top-of-the-line GPU - and that means a dgpu… and once you do that, AMD doesn’t make sense.First you say CPU performance is all that matters. Then you say laptop CPU should have huge iGPU so that CPU performance suffers
Because you still have to use it every so often unplugged! It might be only 10-20% of your use - but if you paid thousands for it, you want to be able to use it ALL the time
Like I said, desktop CPU's could be used on laptops. Here's AMD https://eurocom.com/ec/benchmark(251)NightskyARX315
Really? I have no data how much 6900HX costs but easy to suspect that's around same as i9-12900HK that is priced $635.00. Your logic that expensive CPU also requires high end GPU and that means external one, does not make sense. Both AMD and Intel equipped most expensive mobile CPU's with best integrated graphics they could. Even when it meant sacrificing CPU performance.
Again, what that has to do with high end iGPU? Previously usage on battery was supposed to be light...Because you still have to use it every so often unplugged! It might be only 10-20% of your use - but if you paid thousands for it, you want to be able to use it ALL the time
Lol - you picked a 6k+ laptop as your other example? And notice how they’re both INTEL
I also gave Ryzen laptop example that is faster than those Intel's.Lol - you picked a 6k+ laptop as your other example? And notice how they’re both INTEL
It actually proves my point… if you are going expensive - then battery is irrelevant and you want the most powerful internals you can get - which are Intel, NOT AMD…
And still you say Intel is better while AMD has much faster iGPU and better battery life. Just because Intel has faster CPU. So in your opinion, all that matters is CPU performance. That desktop CPU's do better. Also better iGPU also means weaker CPU (or more expensive and/or bigger power consumption and heavier laptops). Therefore your opinion suddenly changed from "best CPU perfomance" into "fast iGPU". Too bad, you cannot have both
Except you CAN have both... you take the best cpu - the Intel one! And the best DGPU....the Nvidia one!I also gave Ryzen laptop example that is faster than those Intel's.
That just proves that if you want best laptop, you put desktop CPU in there.
And still you say Intel is better while AMD has much faster iGPU and better battery life. Just because Intel has faster CPU. So in your opinion, all that matters is CPU performance. That desktop CPU's do better. Also better iGPU also means weaker CPU (or more expensive and/or bigger power consumption and heavier laptops). Therefore your opinion suddenly changed from "best CPU perfomance" into "fast iGPU". Too bad, you cannot have both
It makes sense because I still want portability, I just don't need a super thin and light laptop nor do I want to carry a microATX case either.
Well, I don't know the specs on the iGPU, but I imagine there are some non-gaming use cases that might favor decent built-in graphics. With any CPU/GPU products there always seems to be one or more models that hit the sweet spot of price/performance. If you don't see a use for the HK, then I suggest you not use it.
I have a MBA M1. It's a great machine, but I can't say that it smokes all the Intel laptops I've had or currently have. Yes, it's quiet and it definitely has better battery life when unplugged. But performance-wise, it's good but not head-and-shoulders better. In fact, there are a couple of things where it can bog down, in particular some web sites seem to really cause problems. It's hard to know if it's the web site, the browser or the machine/OS but on a couple of sites when typing replies to posts it will be dog slow. I have to close the browser or reboot the machine to get it back to normal.
I believe I stated that… can you give another explanation ?
Very simple, stating that you "suspect" that AMD never expected that Alder Lake like if AMD was some sort of single person who is driven by feelings instead of a big team driven by science, innovation and logistics shows that. No company wants to play second fiddle, if AMD haven't launched anything yet to compete with Alder Lake, is just that, AMD has nothing yet to compete with Alder Lake.
But they ARE releasing something shortly that is expected to... are you telling me that, had they known how well Alder Lake would perform, they might not have tried to hurry their latest Zen architecture along?
