How do you want your next laptop to be built?

It's sad how the situation is become for laptops!! One worse than the other. First push the OEMs out pure trash.... Second trash is the support tech team who adopts the same sick philosophy from their masters(OEMs). No wonder we now can see the light blow out for laptops.

 

There is always a limit to upgrades. The same is true in the desktop world. If you bought a Z170 motherboard, guess what... X99 CPU ain't gonna work, bubba. Choose wisely, avoid wasting money on mediocre parts and spend less in the long run next time is the best approach.

If you buy the highest configuration possible there is no upgrade path in some cases. But, if you bought second- or third-string CPU and or GPU, upgrades are possible. Together with repairability and better performance, there is still plenty to be compelling for sockets and slots and good reason to avoid soldered filth.

But, you are right about the horrible way we are being treated by ODMs and OEMs that are intentionally doing things to screw us by making square pegs for our round holes. Shame on them. What a sorry lot they are.

Maybe we should stop spending money on anything they have to offer and let them rot in bankruptcy hell for being such dishonest companies. Sounds reasonable to me.

NVIDIA is the root of all evil in GPU land. I am waiting for AMD to pull a middle-finger death punch on them. Still waiting. Clock is ticking. Looks like another no-show. But, the door is still wide open and waiting for them to walk through it.

Hopefully, AMD won't be stupid enough to abandon MXM. If they make it work, NVIDIA will be chasing AMD. Kind of like the tail wagging the dog, but hey... whatever works.

You stated a case for what you value in a laptop in a very intelligent and meaningful manner and so did @Starlight5 and I find that respectable and deserving of acknowledgment. Both of you are rare examples and most people don't have any idea why they do what they do other than their friends on Facebook think it cool and they want to be part of their clique. And, there are those that just always fly by the seat of their pants or run around like a chicken with its head cut off, doing things impulsively and with no legitimate rationale. If they read it in a magazine ad, heard it in a radio or TV commercial, or saw it on the internet, then it absolutely has to be true.

Using the car example, you don't need to know everything about the car. You don't need to know how to work on it yourself. But, I think most would want to know if what they were contemplating buying is prone to failure, more costly to repair, or disposable, or may fail to meet their performance expectations. Ignorance is curable by providing knowledge. Having knowledge does not require expertise. It is only information. Information and knowledge are both valuable.

Hyperbole is awesome. I love it. Sarcasm as well.

This sometimes causes people that usually don't use their brain to pull their head out and stop acting stupid. If it happens with only a few, that's a few that don't stay stupid forever. Every win is a win.

It might make a few folks that are not secure in their understanding or position to feel intimidated or have their feelings hurt, but they really need to have tougher skin than that. I suspect those are rare in number and life is hard in the wild wild west.

 

If the multis are locked then yes. Clevo will surely leave turbo ratios unlocked for Ryzen, and even then it will run cooler with its soldered IHS unlike Intel's hot garbage ("TIM").

 

Hot garbage (TIM). Is replaceable. As for previous Intel cpu's, use Liquid metal under and over IHS. I can't see this as a problem.

 

Laws of thermodynamics are still valid, so a thin and light gaming laptop with a standard gtx1070/1080 is not possible without thermal issues IMO

some bga cpu/bga gpu "gaming" laptops are not so thin and light

15" BGA

Alienware 15 R3 -------->height x width x depth (in mm): 25 x 389 x 305 ( = 0.98 x 15.31 x 12.01 in), 3.548 kg ( = 125.15 oz / 7.82 pounds)

Acer Predator 15 ------->height x width x depth (in mm): 39 x 391 x 300 ( = 1.54 x 15.39 x 11.81 in), 3.72 kg ( = 131.22 oz / 8.2 pounds)

15" LGA

Msi 16L13------->
height x width x depth (in mm): 39.8 x 390 x 266 ( = 1.57 x 15.35 x 10.47 in), 3.105 kg ( = 109.53 oz / 6.85 pounds)

Clevo p750dm2-g------>
height x width x depth (in mm): 38 x 386 x 262 ( = 1.5 x 15.2 x 10.31 in), 3.626 kg ( = 127.9 oz / 7.99 pounds)



17" BGA

Alienware 17 R4-----------> height x width x depth (in mm): 29.9 x 424 x 332 ( = 1.18 x 16.69 x 13.07 in), 4.42 kg ( = 155.91 oz / 9.74 pounds)

Acer predator 17---------> height x width x depth (in mm): 40 x 423 x 322 ( = 1.57 x 16.65 x 12.68 in), 4.23 kg ( = 149.21 oz / 9.33 pounds)

Acer Predator 17 X----->
height x width x depth (in mm): 45 x 423 x 322 ( = 1.77 x 16.65 x 12.68 in), 4.346 kg ( = 153.3 oz / 9.58 pounds)


Asus G752VS------------>
height x width x depth (in mm): 53 x 428 x 334 ( = 2.09 x 16.85 x 13.15 in), 4.48 kg ( = 158.03 oz / 9.88 pounds)

Asus G701VIK------------->
height x width x depth (in mm): 38 x 429 x 309 ( = 1.5 x 16.89 x 12.17 in), 3.99 kg ( = 140.74 oz / 8.8 pounds)

17" LGA

Clevo P775dm3-g------>
height x width x depth (in mm): 39.9 x 418 x 295 ( = 1.57 x 16.46 x 11.61 in), 4.167 kg ( = 146.99 oz / 9.19 pounds)


Clevo P870km1-------->
height x width x depth (in mm): 47 x 428 x 308 ( = 1.85 x 16.85 x 12.13 in), 5.5 kg ( = 194.01 oz / 12.13 pounds)

 

Expect Alienware will continue shrink the chassis thickness as this is their philosophy. Same for known APPLE brand as Razer, Aorus and EVGA. + all the others will following Like sheep!! Only LGA and MMX can hold back.

Just see the TRIPOD epidemic sickness out there... It will flow everywhere. Just wait and see when 6 cores 45W chips coming. Expect more heat issues or throttling as chassis thickness will shrink. And we don't know about how Nvidia and Volta will be. Be prepared on mess.

 

One of the goals of this thread...

 

IDK, Alienware very clearly rejected Nvidia Max-Q Design in this video. AW choose performance and sane size ergonomics over Nvidia's Max-Q Design.

In fact Alienware pushed out a 1070 OC release in parallel with the Max-Q 1080 model that was $400 cheaper and as fast or faster than the Max-Q 1080:

Not All Nvidia Geforce 1080 Max-Q's Are Created Equal | Alienware

 

OEMs choose BGA cpus/gpus because they like to save money.
LGA light laptops are possible and clevo showed it


office
n350dw ( height x width x depth (in mm): 32.95 x 382 x 259.5 ( = 1.3 x 15.04 x 10.22 in), 2.683 kg ( = 94.64 oz / 5.92 pounds))




n650du



multimedia/low gaming
W650kj1/W650kk1


gaming
n850kp6

 

LGA all the way. Although I prefer buying multiple PCs.

 

Alienware's newest "Echo" design ain't very old as you know. But for every new revision aka last 4 gen included last socket models have become thinner. Their main competitors is and will be Razer, Aorus and EVGA. They are in their own liga. But all other will follow after. It's sad we have Apple gaming laptops everywhere now

 

They maximize profit by going BGA, lowering their production costs using a cookie cutter process shared by all products they offer. By selling products that are resistant to performance improving enhancements, they reduce their risk of incurring costs for consumer ignorance and user-induced damage during the warranty period. They are also fully aware that enthusiasts will not buy garbage with limited potential and they don't want our business. They spend a lot on false advertisements because they do want the posers that erroneously view themselves as being an enthusiasts and have lots of money to waste trying to prove they are something special. They charge the same or more to consumers for inferior products and the privilege of making them more profitable.

Sounds like a good plan for them. And, it is absolutely imperative that all of us that know better stop resisting change and fall in line to be in compliance with their plan... not.

 

Wasn't the OC vBIOS meant for 1080 to deliver almost desktop like performance under controlled conditions?
The only thing holding me back is price of LGA laptops which is too expensive here.

 

I think you are confusing the full performance 1080 in the 17" vs what we were discussing which is the 15" with 1080 Max-Q and 1070 OC options.

And AW did issue a modest bump up for the 17" 1080 quite a while back now... I don't know that it did much.

 

I cant see any OC vBIOS for 1070 in official site.

 

Did you watch the AW video I posted? It's part of the shipping 1070 model now, it's not available for previous laptops.

 

Ahhh, now i remember, someone had the new vBIOS for 1070 and everyone was asking about it. I remember.

 

I voted option 2. I don't really care about the CPU much, I haven't been CPU limited on my laptops ever since the Core 2 Duo days. I just don't do anything CPU intensive. GPU upgrades are what I want.

 

And the rest of the AWbook 15 owners with 1070 is screwed Nice job, Mr. Azor. Same ****y as when Yoo pushed out 8GB variants instead of 4GB 980M one year after and called it an improvement. 1 year after all the other OEMs pushed more normal variants of 980M

 

Improvements are not "screwings" of owners of previous models

Think of it as a younger prettier laptop springs from and to the bounty of all.

"Sell your old laptop and get a new one, there is no upgrade there is only do" - Yoda, if he was a laptop gamer, probably...

 

Selling your old 1070 model and upgrade to a few months newer 1070 once again. Same milking with 4GB 980M vs. the 8GB variants. And people jump on without problems. Oh'well almost as Upgrade to Max-Qrippled!! But the opposite way.

 

Usually I'm one of the less radically-socketed types on this forum, but I think you guys have gotten to me. I took "socketed everything" for my vote. I'd tolerate BGA in an ultrabook, but not in my main machine. I'm hooked on performance for work apps now.

 

Well, that's not what I meant, I think you know that - besides the OC in the BIOS / vbios isn't any more than can be done with XTU + Afterburner, but it lets AW ship it OC'd out of the box with the settings fixed at boot.

Noone's being screwed out of anything

 

That's just messed up and wrong any way you want to slice it. That mentality is exactly why everything is so severely screwed up in notebook world.

Yoda would never be an advocate of giving in to the Dark Side. Even Darth Vader was smart enough to know when to throw an evil piece of crap off the ledge and let it fall to its death.

Getting screwed is just an unavoidable hazard of choosing to become a BGA turdbook owner. You have to be OK with that up front, or completely unaware of it, before opening you wallet. The important thing is not not be unaware of the fact that you are about to make a very costly mistake. Those are the people we need to help. What they ultimately do with that knowledge is on them.

 

I voted full socket. I don't know, maybe I'm just old school (or old for that matter) but if I am buying a gaming machine, I am buying it for performance. Period. I am not interested in thin and light. Thin and light means poor cooling for high performance components, and soldered components that do not perform as well as socketed components. I want bleeding edge, melt your face, scream like a banshee performance. If I'm buying a gaming laptop, and forking out the premium cost for it, why the hell would I want anything less? That's the point of buying a gaming laptop in the first place.

 

The problem with that is that such thinking (buying an expensive laptop now and thinking it'll last) is the sort of future-proofing mentality that I generally warn people against in WNBSIB.

You buy a really high-end machine (iX-7XXX and 10XX) now for $$$$, use it for a A years, then want/have to upgrade the parts to the top of the line for that era for $$$$ (MXM and laptop CPU parts being a bit pricey, assuming you can find compatible parts) and use for an additional B years. Instead, an alternate can be that you buy a good iX-7XXX/10XX system now for $$$, pocket the change, use that for A years, and then buy a iX-9XXX/13XX system (as an example) for $$$ for the next B years for a total of $$$$$. It's not realistic to think that you'll get an economic advantage by locking yourself into the current platform for A+B years, whereas you can use the current platform for A years and save a few bucks, then later upgrading to the newer (more powerful/efficient/etc) platform after A years for a bit of money and using that for B years. In the end you'd come out on top with that iX-9XXX/13XX configuration rather than finally moving on from iX-7XXX/10XX in (2017+A+B).

This is of course ignoring things like warranty support, battery life, displays, MXM incompatibilities, etc.

 

Buying laptop with socket hardware means you have bigger chance to keep it several years with lowest possible cost vs. JokeBook's. Everything soldered on MB is a damn rotten solution!!

 

It can play out like that if you're not careful about what you buy. But, it depends on what you are starting out with. We are only just now seeing a rare example of a BGA CPU here or there that can almost match the performance of 3920XM and 4930MX. Most can't even come close to touching that. Had they not gone Nazi on us by changing form factors and dropping LVDS support to fabricate new incompatibilities, I have absolutely no doubt that people with Alienware and Clevo monsterbooks made between 2008 through 2012 would still, to this very day, be kicking BGA turdbook ass and taking names. There is no question that an Aliemware M18xR2 with 3920XM and a 1080, or an Alienware 17 or 18 with 4930MX or a P570WM with 4930K or 4960X with a 1080 would literally mop the floor with anything the gaming turdbook vendors are peddling today. We're talking laptops that are at least 5 years old and one that is approaching 10 years old cleaning their clock, LOL. That is pathetic. The idiocy we are seeing now was a very methodical, carefully executed, evil act of financial violence designed for the purpose of defrauding customers and driving new system sales. MXM upgrades are ungodly expensive and always have been. Now more than ever before, the cost is ludicrous. But, those upgrade always have been (and still are) a fraction of the cost of buying a less powerful, disposable BGA turdbook simply for gaining a GPU upgrade and tolerating a CPU downgrade.

With the diabolical changes that interfere with things like we have seen lately, the OEMs/ODMs are creating a gloomy but self-fulfilling prophecy and a building a future predicated upon their own failures. The examples mentioned above were all truly amazing products that were a gift that kept on giving. I guess if you're on the other side of the fence one might say that they had to take action to stop people from saving money by upgrading superior products that shame the stuff they are trying to sell today.

 

To me, this is a painful reminder of just how little we've advanced with CPUs. Not just in terms of IPC, but on the software side implementation of newer instruction sets is also terrible. On the desktop side of things, if you had bought an i7 920 years ago, you could still be popping new graphics cards into that rig and pretty much be on the same page as anyone else, unless you can take advantage of AVX or other features on newer CPUs. As you say, if notebooks had similar options, the landscape there would look similar.

 

You mean i7-2600K. Even an i7-920 overclocked to 4GHz (the typical ceiling for those chips) bottlenecks anything faster than a 1060 (or 280X since AMD drivers have more CPU overhead) in many modern games, and you can forget about SLI/CrossFire with PCIe 2.0.

 

For a CPU that's about 9 years old, being limited to a GTX 1060 isn't a horrible spot to be in. I hadn't considered multi GPU issues, but support for that continues to dwindle, to the extent that I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Volta will definitely be limited by an i7 920 across the product stack, but conveniently, at that point you've actually got compelling new CPU options for the first time in a long time.

 

I love the FS results. Best FS score from 6700BGA + 1080 vs. the old man and 1080 This is what we call massive progression.

 

Yeah, let's just ignore the 900 MHz clock speed difference between them, and the fact that the 6700HQ is a 45W chip, while a desktop 920 @ 4 GHz guzzles >300W by itself. If anything, this shows Intel's efficiency improvement, that they can match the performance of the old CPU with a newer CPU whose power consumption is basically lower by an order of magnitude.

 

It's surprising to me how sometimes we forget about the power side of things.

 

Power efficiency is everything in mobile devices such as notebooks. It's why we get these performance improvements gen-over-gen in the first place, why Nvidia dominates the mobile dGPU market, etc.

 

Excellent comparison! +5 rep.

But, it took them 10 years to make a BGA CPU 2.9% less powerful, LOL. You might call it efficiency improvement, but it would be kind of weak argument considering the span of time and how long it took them. I actually see it as a better indicator of what a real CPU runs like rather than a throw-away child's toy CPU. Great value from that antique 920. I would be willing to bet that nobody will be holding their spot on the performance food chain using a 6700HQ after 9 years has passed like that 920 is able to do.

Here is a cool comparison. A 3920XM (released 2012). A 55W TDP unlocked Extreme mobile CPU producing a 23.2% higher physics score than the best example of what 6700HQ has to offer for a physics score. Never mind the fact it is capable of easily running 1.4GHz higher clock speeds with only a 10W difference in TDP starting point, and not generating any more heat than the 6700HQ while doing that. BGA has come so far in such a short time... not by my measurements. (And, that's only this example. I used to bench mine at 1.6GHz more than what 6700HQ is capable of.)

I am not connecting the dots on how we are accomplishing such great things on the mobile front since BGA filth replaced the high quality socket-mounted mobile processors. I think I paid something like around $375 for my last 3920XM (used on eBay... no need to pay retail for upgrade parts).

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/13013267/fs/6473695#

 

Not 10 years, more like <7 years. i7-920 Q4'08, i7-6700HQ Q3'15. Anyway the point about efficiency is undeniable, as is reaching the limits of silicon and lithography scaling challenges as the transistors get smaller and smaller.

 

If you buy something built well, it can handle the power. You only need to worry about that if you buy something that has been gimped and cannot handle more power. It's amazing how much heat these wimpy BGA turd CPUs can churn out with so much more "efficiency" and lower power consumption, LOL.

Better to do more with more rather than less with less. Efficiency doesn't mean as much when the results produced as a result of it are not as good. Losing always sucks. Unless performance doesn't matter all that much. Then it might have some degree of merit to it. I'm not going to give any amount of credit to BGA filth for being an improvement over older technology when all of the numbers I look at show me that it is a step backwards where performance matters most.

 

You're still not fully getting it. Look at it this way. If TDP, both in terms of power consumption and the amount of heat that needs to be removed, is the main limiting factor, then the only way to improve performance is to improve efficiency first. You can't have one without the other. It is indeed retarded that BGA is taking over laptops, but that is a bit beside the point. If you look at the advancement rate of SoCs in phones/tablets over the last few year, which are all BGA, they've been on a hyperdrived Moore's Law that make even PC GPUs pale in comparison (although even that is slowing down).

 

To add to Carrot's latest comment, you also have to consider that those efficiency costs are not non-trivial. Comparing the 6700HQ and the 920, chips with a 45W TDP and ~300W TDP respectively, you have a newer chip that can do at least 97.1% of the work the 920 can but only using 15% of the electrical power required by the 920. In other words, you can see the 6700HQ as a chip that can either allow you to do practically the same amount of work per unit of time but overall more work (a 6700HQ can run for ~6.67 times longer than a 920 from the same pool of energy and all other parts being equal) or (assuming your work is embarrassingly parallel) you can do your work **much** faster by using 6-7 6700HQ chips together (roughly equal to the 920 in terms of TDP) with around 583% to 680% more compute power than a single 920 for the same energy budget (very useful if you were hooking up a few laptops into a Hadoop cluster, for example). For less-than-embarrassingly parallel work, you'll still see a >100% improvement by using multiple, more efficient CPUs (or GPUs, for that matter) than a single, power-hungry CPU (GPU).

This is all ignoring price-per-performance ratio as well. 920 chips, iirc, were rather expensive for their performance, whereas 6700HQs are relatively cheaper (and perform practically the same).

Really, the only thing that you're losing out here between a 6700HQ and a 920 is the ability to replace the chip for when you feel like upgrading the parts in your laptop (or, in the rare case, the CPU fails). That's not really a major downside, especially compared to the big upsides you gain insofar as a compute per watt comparison. And to be frank, assuming that "BGA filth" completely takes over 100% of the laptop market, there is always the desktop markets, both prebuilt (for the most part) and DIY segments. We have full-power, monstrous gaming desktops (with socketed CPUs and GPUs) that can be stuffed in backpacks (and sold as such), even including batteries for portable use, thanks to the advancements of the VR market; the whole point of gaming laptops is to be able to game on the move, though they are now being complemented by (or being made redundant by, if you're a pessimist) "backpack desktops" and similar. So even if gaming laptops all become BGA, there is still hope for LGA lovers.

===========================

Not trying to rag on you or anyone else her who *really, really* like LGA laptops, Fox. I tend to be really pragmatic about computers and tend not to get really deep into any one field, so to speak.

 

Hey, no worries, bro. You are in no way bothering me. And, I don't even feel like you are ragging on me, man. I am glad you are speaking up. I want people to share their views and it does not make any difference if we agree on everything. I am also very pragmatic, but to the opposite extreme or using a different measure of success on this topic. I also believe there is a time and place to be dogmatic, and this is one of them for me and guys of a similar persuasion. So, pragmatic and dogmatic are both very good positions to have here. And, I think you can have it both ways, too, depending on perspective of the audience. Sometimes the only thing that clearly defines a technical difference between a pragmatic view and a dogmatic view is passion.

Yes, I do fully get it. But, I am never going to give any credit or acknowledgement to BGA filth under any circumstances if it is presented as a high performance product. Apart from being a product that has been compromised in order to deal with its own shortcomings, being permanently attached to the motherboard negates any value it might have offered had it been placed in a socket like a real CPU. I don't appreciate the lies from the gutless shysters that expect us accept their nonsense or buy their disposable trash. See above comment about being dogmatic.

 

I mean, I love upgradeability too, but for me that means desktops (all of my non-laptop computers are DIY, for example). And I've definitely been burned on computers which have no upgradeable parts (Asus Transformerbook T100 has a dying eMMC SSD, I think). However, that said I'm really only concerned about the storage drive(s) and battery in a laptop (I don't see myself buying a laptop with a sealed battery, for example).

Even with my love for DIY desktops and user-replaceable laptop HDDs/SSDs/batteries, in the end computers are simply tools that help a user accomplish their ends. I sort of treat computers like I treat cars: I try to keep up with the latest and greatest in computer news, but I don't have a passion for LGA (or rotary engines), and I use both simply to accomplish other tasks; the only real difference for me between cars and computers is that I know how to fix and play around with computers, whereas I don't really know how to maintain a car whatsoever.

 

That's totally cool man. The important thing is that you have things how you want them and you are satisfied with it. Then everything is great. Everyone should be able to enjoy having their desktop or laptop built and run exactly the way they want it. That would include good accommodations for all of us. If everything ends up becoming low powered BGA stuff, focused on being thin and light, and running for a long time on battery, that will totally exclude some of us and we won't be able to enjoy owning laptops any more. They won't have anything that meets our expectations. That would be so sad, but it definitely looks like the direction things are moving. The end to what was once awesome.

 

Eh, I don't think LGA will completely go away. It will probably be a niche market (if it isn't already), but so long as there are buyers out there willing to shell out, I'm sure it will be sold. Sort of like how the mass market doesn't use (or want) mechanical keyboards, but there is still a market for them out there (especially the nice, high-end ones).

 

The other factor to consider here is that you do not need to replace a machine because technology changes. You need to replace a machine because your requirements change.

Sometimes those two can be linked. For example, "There is a new technology that offers a full 3D Holodeck experience like in Star Trek, but I need the new Intel i99999 CPU at 2000 GHz to run it." In this case, your requirements to run a new class of application drive the purchase of a new machine, if you aren't able to upgrade your old Intel i88888 to the new i99999.

But if your needs are to run Skyrim at 60 FPS in 4K, then today's 16L13 with a 1080 GPU can do that (I know, because I've done it here). Five years from now, no matter what everyone else is doing with their machines, if I still just need to run Skyrim at 60 FPS in 4K, I won't need to upgrade or replace.

The reason I raise this point is that my Thinkpad W700 laptop was my primary machine for almost a decade, even though "any technology you can buy is already obsolete." I did several upgrades on that machine, notably moving from HDD to SSD, but I never upgraded the CPU or GPU at all. The point is, at that time my needs didn't change radically, and so the machine remained viable and was if not future proof at least 'future resistant" within the parameters of my individual needs.

The Macbook Pro that I bought in 2013 lasted only 4 years, and then I had to entirely replace the machine. I was able to upgrade the SSD size marginally (from 768G to 1024G), but nothing else. But it wasn't "technology" that drove my replacement; rather, I started doing 3D content creation that I hadn't been doing 4 years ago.

When I bought this 16L13 platform, it was with the idea of it becoming the next W700 in my life, a machine that is far enough "out there" on the cutting edge today that I'll still be happy with it 5 to 8 years from now, modulo some upgrades of SSD and RAM.

 

That's true at the microcosmic level, on the silicon, as well. Transistor size (e.g., 14 nm vs. 10 nm) decreases, which decreases the capacitance of the FETs, which decreases the Coulombs of charge that have to enter and exit for each state change on that gate, which decreases the aggregate power consumption per gate at constant clock speed. Result? Increased clock speed at same power density, or reduced power density at same clock speed. Either way, FTW. Lowering voltage has a related impact, again reducing the quantity of charge in and out of each gate transition.

Much of the challenge in modern chip design isn't "how much can we pack onto the silicon", but rather "how much can we pack onto the silicon and still be able to remove the thermal energy?"

 

If all of humanity could maintain that kind of attitude about the world at large, and not just this topic, the planet would be a more civil place. Open discourse and diverse but courteously-presented viewpoints are the foundation of intellectual growth. +rep.

 

Just to add to sysceusher's post, the Thinkpad X61t (circa 2006, but bought second-hand later) and W520 (circa 2011) still run pretty well and meet my needs just as they did back when I bought those machines, no CPU/GPU upgrades needed (or even possible, at least GPU-wise). Only issue I have is that the X61t's battery is flat and the screen is slightly bubbled but still usable (it was a common issue), and the W520's batteries are of course showing their age.

 

45W chips or not. Focus on how the second best Intel mobile from previous gen who is called high end from some review sites do it in comparison with the old man. If my sons soon 5 years old 4700/4800Mq mobile could be used with 1080 in his old Msibook you would see same results. 6700hq would loose further. Aka being raped!! Or the better word... rekted. Even the newest Intel BGA trash 7700hq would loose.
Some here in the thread said the old man 920 i7-2600K bottlenecks anything faster than a 1060. Other said this isn't true with the lot newer mobile 6700hq. Maybe it should be more like 1070

6700hq ain't much cheaper than the old man. In today's monetary value, they are quite similar.

 

The poll is useless. The result is obvious. Most of us would prefer being able to upgrade and change hardware, but we are a minor group, which the industry realizes. Most people don't want to open their notebooks, they don't want the best performance either. All they care about is, that it works and looks "spacey"

Most notebooks are build so that the average user can do their work and do some light gaming on their notebook. Most have their desktop PC at home where they play competitively their games in a way better enviroment while using their gaming notebook for school or light gaming. That's also why companies build slimmer notebooks without being customizable, because only people like us would ever use it, while the rest simply don't care.

Apple is the best example of it. If everyone would think like us, apple would be either dead or would step up their game dramaticly. If u'd make the same poll on some random forums where casual people are, they would say that they don't care, want it to work, and has to look nice.

What I'm basicially saying is, this thread is pointless and just another random thread where people can vent about BGA. I don't know where this elitiest pride is coming from, but personally I find it childish. Sure, some business choices are downright ridiculous like trying to build GTX 1080 desktop rated GPUS into thin cases with very limited cooling, but most simply just want it to say "I got GTX 1080 in my notebook" and not because they actually use the performance.