First, great job for taking the industry in a much-needed direction.
I would like to make a suggestion re: processors offered. The base offering is the i5-1135G7. However, there’s a cheaper processor that offers almost all of the same features and performance: the quad-core Core i3-1125G4.
Here’s a Passmark comparison, showing the 1125G4 performs only 7% lower on average than the 1135G7, a difference that will not be noticed in normal use. (The iGPU has fewer EUs, but is based on the Xe architecture and still performs much better than the previous-gen UHD graphics.)
Note that the 4-core/8-thread 1125G4 shouldn’t be confused with the 2-core/4-thread i3-1115G4, which is more common on budget laptops as it was launched earlier. Intel seems to have quietly launched the quad-core i3-1125G4 this year to compete with the quad-core Ryzen 3 processors in the 4000/5000 series. Offering this processor in the Framework laptop would offer an even better value - a lower price point while sacrificing very little - and require little in the way of additional engineering.
The i5 is already a fantastic value even beating out the i7 in multiple reviews because it’s able to boost higher. I’d love to see an i3 to help get the diy version under the $600 mark which is a popular price point for most people.
The i3 option is fascinating, and seems easier for Framework to implement than adding amd or risc processor options (due to its availability, tb4 support, etc). Certainly I wouldn’t expect anything like this in their current iteration, but it’s an interesting option for the future.
Does anyone know why this smaller processor running at a slower speed is benched as using almost twice the power as the i5? Is that some strange artifact of this particular test, or an actual problem with the i3 itself?
If you mean the 28W vs 15W that Passmark shows, that’s not a benchmark/test result, it’s an error (or maybe just inconsistency) in how Passmark listed the specs. Per Intel’s specs, both the i3-1125G4 and i5-1135G7 have a configurable TDP-up of 28W and TDP-down of 12W. Nominal/default TDP for both is 15W, I believe.
I mean a Ryzen would be much nicer. I will probably buy the i5 but if it was a Ryzen and a mate screen they would already have my money…
While it’s likely to be a drop-in replacement, I imagine the design was finalized around Q3 2020 - when the 1135/1165/1185’s were released.
This is a very good point. And if we’re going to be waiting a full development cycle anyways (with all of the changes in silicon availability etc that entails), I would definitely prefer them to focus on amd development. There are a lot of sensible reasons Intel was the better choice for their IPO, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t choose Ryzen if the choice was offered!