Confirm dimensions - W14in not 16in?

The specs say that the Framework 16 dimensions (without the graphics module) are:

L: 270mm (10.6 in)
W: 360mm (14 in)
H: 18mm (0.7 in)

How is this possible with a 16 inch screen? Is the width a typo or am I missing something?

Screen sizes are measured on the diagonal, not the width.


16" doesn’t describe the width of a screen, but the diagonal dimension. From What are the Display Specifications for the Framework Laptop 16?
2560x1600 Resolution
16:10 Aspect Ratio
Thus, the horizontal screen size (visible) is approx. 13.57" or 345mm and vertical size accordingly 8.48" or 215mm.
This in turn computes to borders of 7.5mm at each side to reach the total of 360mm.


Makes sense - thanks so much for the fast & helpful response!


And thank goodness for that! A 16" wide laptop would be crossing the line into “monstrous” territory. Does anyone currently make such a beast? My old Toshiba A500 is 15.1" wide and I’ll never go that big again.

1 Like

This is a forum, I am glad all people can ask any questions here.


Thanks @Philam ! It does seem obvious in hindsight that screen size would be a diagonal measure, especially since as @OperationCWAL said a 16 inch wide laptop would have been a monster. But it’s been a while since I’ve had to buy a laptop, and with smartphones getting bigger and bigger I wasn’t sure what to expect. I’m really excited about the graphics module on the 16 and am glad it will fit in my backpack!

1 Like

I have a Lenovo Ideapad L340 with a 17.3" screen and thick bezels that has a width of 413 x 285 x 25.3 mm (16.26" x 11.22" x 1.00") that I got for cheap as a backup laptop years ago. The thing is a behemoth that you could probably beat someone to death with if you really wanted to.

Edit: This is the one.


Woof! Yeah, look, I understand the desire for a massive 17.3" screen, but they could have easily gotten in under 16" if they shaved those bezels down somehow! The 11.22" depth also concerns me. The FW16 is awkwardly deep (actually 5mm deeper with the GPU module!), but at least it has a reason to be that way. What was your excuse, Lenovo???

Though honestly if it’s being used as more of a portable desktop, only being used on desk or table tops, then I probably wouldn’t be so sensitive to size. But I can’t imagine using something that big on my actual lap in a car, on public transportation, on a boat, or with a goat. I could not, would not fit that in my backpack. I’d have to, have to, send it back.


The bulk does have its upsides! The whole thing stays extremely quiet even under full load, it has one of the best keyboards I have ever used on a laptop, though it still wasn’t mechanical, and I wouldn’t worry about it if I dropped it. I have an Everki Atlas Backpack and the LTT backpack and they both fit it, so either of those will definitely fit the Framework 16 with plenty of room to spare.

As for the Framework 16’s sizeable depth I think there are ways to make use of it on models without a GPU in the future. There is a PCIE connector that isn’t seeing any use so I would love to see some other options besides a GPU being offered by Framework or even though a third party. You have enough room in between those fans to maybe fit a daughter board that could house another full size m.2 or two and maybe some expanded IO options with a few expansion card slots in the back, or even a more elegant solution to adding an ethernet connection without the bulky expansion card currently on offer.

I think there is a growing market of laptops that are really intended as portable desktop.

AMD even has an entire line of processors that seem like they’re designed for portable desktop. The AMD Dragon Range processors (7945hx3d, 7945hx, 7845hx, 7745hx, and 7645hx) are actually just Ryzen 7000 desktop processors in a laptop form factor. The Phoenix processors on the other hand (what Framework uses) were designed specifically for use in laptops. There are different design philosophies between desktop and laptop processors resulting in the Dragon Range and Phoneix processors being very different.

Ryzen 7000 desktop processors (and Dragon Range processors) use a chiplet architecture (easier to scale to higher core counts), TSMC 5 nm process (older but a bit cheaper), weak integrated graphics (desktops are expected to have dedicated graphics), and to save money doesn’t include USB4 support (since desktops don’t need eGPUs or docking stations, although many docks work without USB4).

By comparison Phoenix processors use a monolithic architecture (more power efficient), TSMC 4 nm process (newer and more efficient), strong integrated graphics (many thin and lights don’t have room for a dedicated GPU), and have native support for two USB4 ports.

So Phoenix makes sense for laptops, whereas Dragon Range makes sense on portable desktops because Dragon Range is available at higher core counts (because it uses a more scalable chiplet architecture) and the downsides of Dragon Range don’t matter as much (desktop replacements are typically connected to power most of the time so the worse efficiency of TSMC 5 nm and chiplet architectures aren’t a big deal, desktop replacements typically have strong dedicated graphics so the weak integrated graphics and lack of USB4 eGPU support aren’t big deals).

Although IMO the 6 and 8 core variants of Dragon Range are pretty pointless since Phoenix is also available at those core counts. The only advantages of Dragon Range at those core counts is additional PCIe bandwidth (although the Phoenix processors have enough for the Framework 16, so that should be enough for most laptops) and Dragon Range has more cache (although that’s mainly because chiplet architectures hurt memory performance, so it’s more important to have cache to make up for the reduction in memory performance).



I’m sure they haven’t stopped teaching Pythagorean theorem in schools, but I don’t know how many of us remembered it after 30+ years. That’s why there was a TV Show called “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?”. Freshly learned brains vs 30+ years after the fact makes for a great “how much do you remember?”

Also, things keep changing in the world as we (humans) learn more and more about our world, as well as more efficient ways of solving problems (new equations, etc). I accept that there are new ways to learn things, even though I may not understand it now. But there are people who just hang on to what they learned 30 years ago like it’s a never-changing fact. News flash! It’s not.

I think it really depends on the thickness as well. I was genuinely surprised at how manageable my company issued HP zBook G6 17 inch was. It was very thin - no thicker than the standard HP Elitebook G4 14 inch. I also believe material and how it was machined helps make it feel manageable too (milled aluminum vs stamped). It felt very much like a MacBook.

After seeing Dave2D’s video, I know not to expect that kind of feel, but I hope it’s still a pleasant experience and feel.

Thickness does play a role in how portable something feels no matter the diagonal size. Imagine a slim 16 inch vs something like one of those gaming laptops from Asus or MSI. 16/17 inch, but feels much bigger because they are thicc chockers. Actually, imagine one of the early 90s 12 inch laptops that were 2" thick. Sure they are small, but it sure didn’t feel as portable as my 16 inch HP zBook that’s only about half an inch thick.

We’ve not got that one in the UK yet, as for a 5th grader … not sure how old they are.

You’d hope the fact that the diagonal is longer than the base of the triangle would stick, even if the maths didn’t!

I agree to a point. I think there’s still a size where it just feels too wide to sit on my lap, like it’s teeter-tottering off either side of my lower thighs and if I don’t keep my hands towards the center, I could send it tomahawking off into the distance. Now again, if I’m primarily a tabletop user this is pretty much never a problem, but I really tend to use my laptops on my actual lap. I really like the 13" width of my work E7490, so I’m rather thrilled Framework managed to fit a numpad by only adding 1" of width. I think that’s really as big as I want to go personally, though I have been working on getting a bigger lap (god I love cheeseburgers) so maybe my preferences will also expand.

Though there’s also a point where it won’t fit in my backpack, but that too is relative to the size of one’s backpack. I feel like mine is moderately sized, but I do seem to remember lugging around the aforementioned 15.1" by 10.2" Toshiba without stressing the corners, so maybe even that’s overblown.

Oh man, you gotta see the Compaq I recently came in possession of. I think it includes some sort of bottom expansion module, but altogether it’s gotta be at least 4" thick! What a time. Conversely, that Toshiba I mentioned specs at 1.44" thick without the extended battery pack and it was built in 2010, back when even MacBooks were pushing a full inch. We’re not really that far removed from a very different standard of portability!

1 Like

Well, TV sets have been measured like that from day one. I guess it was the diameter of the very early picture tubes used (remember pictures of TV sets from the 50s where the sides of the screen were curved, with a straight top and bottom). Then when ‘square’ tubes came along (they were still curved, just less so, and then masked by the cabinet) some bright marketing exec figured they could beat the opposition by using the diagonal measure as a comparison to the original round tubes, and to make their sets seem to have a larger picture than their competitors.

Ever since displays, TV or computer, have used the diagonal measurement. Your phone will as well, check it out with a ruler.

(written on my 13 year old Dell 17" laptop)

1 Like

That’s interesting @Alan_Pearce! I’ve never purchased a TV, actually - I’m in my early 30s, and a dedicated TV feels like a waste of space in a studio or 1-bedroom apartment. As an adult I’ve basically always watched on my laptop or my partner’s desktop. I’m going to have to get an external optical drive to handle my DVDs, I think.

My first laptop was a chonker of a refurbished late 90s mac PowerBook G3 - apparently 2 H x 12.7 W x 10.4 D and 7.2 pounds!

I am more or less intending my Framework 16 to be a portable desktop. I use my current laptop on a desk or table 95% of the time these days - though I’m also pretty comfortable using it on my lap when need be, and it turns out it’s roughly the same dimensions as the Framework 16, so that’s a good sign.

I do definitely notice how much more comfortable it is to carry my smaller/lighter work laptop around on a day-to-day basis, though.


So in the early 2Ks I used to be a Dell repair technician. They had a monster that had a 20-in monitor attached to a laptop body. The thing was portable in the same way that 1990’s luggables were… And I just dated myself :grin:. The thing was massive.

1 Like

Good use of words because that thing is NOT, as a whole, a laptop. Holy cow! Audacious indeed, CNET.