I am thinking of buying a relatively cheap laptop that is reasonably powerful. I am at loss when it comes to new CPU naming and its compatibility with Linux (from both Intel/AMD). I prefer Ryzen 5 or Core 5 above with atleast 16GB RAM.
Framework laptops are not available where I live.
I saw some Reddit posts claiming AMD being not optimized for Linux particularly for arch related distros (I use EndeavourOS). I am thinking of buying a Thinkbook from Lenovo, but confused b/w team blue & red.
Which of these CPUs are better for running Linux long-term with respect to optimizations, power management, thermals, track pad support etc. If anyone has a laptop recommendation, please feel free to comment down below.
Also, should I go for a high end Laptop like Asus Zenbook S14? A lot of reviews are picking it as the best compact laptop to buy this year. Its expensive. But if it keeps working for a long time, like 6+ years, then I don’t mind investing.
Edit: I use Gnome as my DE with EndeavourOS, but can also try Debian 12 with Gnome.
This is literally the other way around.
But in general it depends on the budget. Both Intel and AMD work perfectly on Linux. It’s more about the CPUs themselves. AMD is better in the budget category because of much more capable iGPUs and performance/price ratio but Intel is better in high end because of simply better technological advancement (as long as you can keep the chip cooler than 90°C).
I wouldn’t be so optimistic about modern laptops, especially ones with dedicated GPUs. They don’t live for more than 2-3 years without repairs.
Are Intel cpus really better in the laptop department? Since in desktop they fell very far behind.
No, Intel CPUs are not better in the laptop department.
As I said, only in high end. I’m talking about i9s here and whatever the new name is. AMD just doesn’t keep up. Though it could already change. I’m not so sure.
Afaik Intel has been dropping the ball for a while now in every segment, low to high.
Yeah, that was my impression also. Couple that with the travesty that was 13th Gen overheating and their refusal to even acknowledge it for so long, and I would say AMD are the wiser investment.
Ultimately there isn’t that much difference in them for most applications, though. Bigger gains can be had with GPU, SSD and even just moar RAM.
It’s very easy to look this up. And the claim is false.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/laptop.html
The tests I saw reported significantly higher performance on Intel. I’m really bad at searching stuff ngl. But that means Intel has pretty much 0 benefits nowadays so AMD is simply better for regular users and gamers.
Was it UserBenchmark by chance? I’ve seen some pretty sus numbers.
Hmm it could’ve been that. But also I saw a research paper and Intel won in almost every category there too.
Don’t have one, so can’t say from experience, but big.LITTLE arch with e and p cores sound very good for laptops.
Newer cores have way better graphics, so even that gap has narrowed if not closed. Iris seems quite capable.
I have an AMD laptop, have no issues with battery life, works like a charm.
Intel even with their architecture had bigger power draw in desktop CPU than AMD. But dunno about laptops.
Don’t get me wrong. I wasn’t arguing that AMD is bad.
The point was that Intel was not as bad as people seem to think. And innovation that was mentioned applies to three things in my opinion:
All 3 of these should be good for laptops.
And then there is this: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/09/testing-intels-next-gen-core-ultra-200v-cpus-ok-performance-great-battery-life/
They say battery life is comparable to Qualcomm.
I’ve yet to see a laptop that can go through heavy load without throttling. The little cooler, which also cools the potential extra GPU, all with a tiny fan, are just a joke and sound like a jet engine.