We’ll be sharing more details around the specs of Framework Laptop 16 when we open pre-orders, but we were interested in seeing what the community’s preferences are around CPUs and GPUs. There are (basically) two CPU and three GPU makers currently operating in the notebook market, which leads to six possible combinations. Let us know which combination you want most. The poll is in alphabetical order.
TBH, I only voted for the Intel GPU option because I want you guys to implement ReBAR support. If you do that, then I don’t really care what GPU y’all go with as long as it isn’t nVidia.
Since we’re getting AMD mainboards I voted for Intel CPU and Nvidia GPU, since that seems to be one of the main options for PC builds, even though I feel an AMD + Nvidia would work just as well…
I’d love to see both AMD and nvidia discrete gpu options available since there are really compelling use cases for both of them in regards to cost, operating system compatibility, and performance characteristics with different workloads. I recognize that the logistics of that could be tough though with how the allocation of that silicon goes… With that in mind, I think nvidia is the clear choice because of its superior performance for many common professional workloads, despite my personal preference for AMD’s more seamless linux support, and generally lower cost for the same tier of performance.
I would presume that the GPU options @nrp is putting forward here are for the expansion bay video cards and that (in order to support expansion bay accessories that aren’t video cards) the mainboard CPUs will automatically come with integrated graphics.
Plot twist:
nrp will announce 2 CPU platforms and 3 GPU modules.
…and become the first in the industry to give you any combo you want.
This is a teaser of what’s to come.
It would be a waste of the modularization design to not benefit from it. Framework, with this design, is on the path to go down in history as the first company to offer this.
The only question is whether they’ll all be available at the same time, or they’re trying to prioritize manufacturing / batch sizes.
Kind of interesting that intel + intel gpu is higher than amd + intel, when clearly people overall seem to want the amd apus over intel, and a STAGGERING amount of people want amd + amd over all other options. I’d assume part of that is assuming matching parts will perform better, which they might, if either company’s marketing means anything, but for amd + amd specifically I think people just want cheaper GPUs, as well as more Linux compatible ones. Seems more “future-proof” to me than an undoubtedly upcharged Nvidia gpu (upcharged by Nvidia, not Framework) that may provide issues as more an more people switch from the Windows s***show to Linux.
My two cents? Obviously amd + amd, amd for better apu efficiency and ALL of the above reasons for the amd GPU.
I am not getting a Framework 16 laptop anytime soon but I voted anyway, because down the road I probably will. Or I will buy one for someone I know. Or someone I know will need one.
Because mix and matching drivers is known to cause issues. Even more so if you are doing switching from internal gpu to external. Same vendor is likely to also see more testing and less likely to cause issues.
As much as I want to see AMD and Intel gpus succeed and all (and AMD has had some pretty good options recently), I feel Nvidia is the well known gpu brand that is trusted by a lot of people, I kinda feel having them as a gpu source would pull more people in than say just AMD or something. I guess I’m particularly thinking of the general consumer who wants a laptop, not most tech enthusiasts?
Either way, cant wait to see this thing become reality
I am surprised Intel + Nvidia isn’t higher for those with professional workload demands but I actually voted Intel + Intel because they’ve been delivering excellent performance for the price and I’m hopeful that they’ll continue to offer great value for mid range budgets. Nvidia prices are laughable. If I was going iGPU with a memory or battery expansion it’d definitely be an AMD choice though. Their newest iGPU has impressive performance.
Nvidia is also notoriously hard to work with as a manufacturer (rip evga) and has the worst linux support (and frameworks share of linux users is a lot higher than the general public).
I hope there is an nvidia option at some point but I doubt it’ll be the first. If the expansion bay form factor takes enough there may even be 3rd party models which would be neat and take some of the load off framework themselves (I am kinda worried they are stretching their small team a bit too thin if they make too much different stuff).
The intels actually look better than expected but they are still experimental and are pretty big chips for the performance, the price/performance comes from them adjusting the price. The few mobile implementations of arc were not good and the drivers have a long way to go.
Amd makes solid mobile gpus and framework already has a relationship with them so amd sounds like the obvious choice for a first option here.
Well yeah you won’t get the “Me want i7 and nvidia (then takes a i7 2600 + gtx 1050 over a i3 13100 and a rx 6600 because i7 and nvidia) crowd but they probably want something with more rgb anyway.”
(I am not getting a 16, too big but I find the expansion bay a fascinating idea I hope to succeed)
Team red all the way for me at the moment. Intel GPUs seem promising for the future and their CPUs are great too of course, but at this moment I’m all in on Ryzen/Radeon (assuming we keep thunderbolt-like USB-C implementations ofc).
I understand a lot of people are Nvidia loyalists, sometimes from an entire lifetime of PC use, so I can understand if it’ll prove to still be important to offer an Nvidia option (similar to Intel CPUs). I just grew up trading brands between many of my setups over the years so I’m relatively agnostic at the end of the day, but I realise that puts me in a minority.
