The Framework 16 has 7840hs/7940hs 8 core CPUs while Framework 13 had 7640u/7840u CPUs. Thus, the least expensive Framework 16 CPU is similar to the most expensive Framework 13 CPU. The Framework 16 has two M2 slots and an expansion bay. It can run six port expansion cards at a time as opposed to four on the 13.
OK, so you might complain that Framework 16 is $230 more than Framework 13. However, Framework 16 appears to have more upgrade options, and my old eyes don’t like the smaller screen. It’s true when all you are after is a larger screen the Framework 16 is expensive. However, for a gaming computer it is a good price. The reviews seem to indicate that the Framework 16 is better for multimedia which does interest me.
Note: Framework sold out 6 batches of Framework 16 preorders in less than 24 hours from their launching preorders.
In the past I got good new computers on clearance for a low price because they couldn’t be upgraded. However, I got burned by Windows 11 because of a 7th gen i7 although I have TPM 2.0 and 16GB ram. I could install Windows 11 with a hack that cannot upgrade only new install. I don’t want to rebuild my software on a six-year-old computer and not sure such an install would demand a new license. Thus, I put in a Framework preorder.
Framework is having to decide what the best models are to come out with first. These designs show the change in computers. The DVD drive is long gone. Now the 2.5" drive bay is gone. Yet these computers have far more performance and drive space than previous modes, especially with what you can do with DIY models.
Kyle_Reis’s comments noted, and corrections made. Thank you for noting mistakes.
I wouldn’t say that the 7840hs is better than the 7840u. They are the same class of CPU, just the 7840hs is optimized to run at higher power (35-54w cTDP) while the 7840u is optimized to run at lower power (15-30w cTDP).
no doubt, but I’ll be waiting for a price drop or an upgraded version since actually just buying a 7600 and plugging it in to an old PSU would yield similar performance
In addition, that 140w is not the 28V/5A as in PD 3.1 spec, but a proprietary 20V/7A implementation which requires a power brick specifically from Lenovo that hasn’t been released in US yet. Using 140W PD 3.1 power bricks will only get 100W.
My dell 130 Watt USBC chargers are rated at 20V1a-6.5a so should work fine esp being with the config i ordered won’t have the GPU. but will be ordering a framework acadapter to be safe.
also hoping my WD19 will work as expected but i don’t really dock all that much with my personal laptop so def not a deal breaker…
for what its worth
I will be replacing a xps 9520 (Yes its fairly new, yes i have 2 potential buyers lined up already) with the FW 16 R7 DIY have a 2TB SSD and 64 GB DDR5 4800 but depending on price at time of shipment may get the 64GB kit from FW or Maybee the 96GB kit from crucial.
The reason for the high cost of the laptop is likely attributed to its extensive modularity, specifically the modular keyboard and the unique form factor. Unlike traditional laptops that benefit from pre-existing tooling and established designs, this innovative concept required significant investment in research, development, and engineering expertise to bring it to life.
Creating a modular laptop with such versatility involved substantial expenses in designing, manufacturing, setting up production lines, and training the workforce to handle the complexities of the assembly process. Additionally, rigorous testing was essential to ensure the various modules work seamlessly together, which further added to the overall cost.
Despite the financial risks, the company decided to prioritize features and user experience over cost-effectiveness. They wanted to offer a cutting-edge product that empowers users to customize their laptops based on their specific needs. The modular design allows for a wide array of configurations, making it a unique and powerful solution for different use cases.
In retrospect, some might argue for a less modular approach to reduce costs, such as offering fewer modules or eliminating the modular keyboard. However, the company’s decision to prioritize features and maintain the full modularity likely resulted in a product that sets a new standard for flexibility and performance in the laptop market.
Framework likely gets most of their margin from replacement parts and the modules. Sell the chassis as cheap as possible to get people into the ecosystem, then keep them in the ecosystem. That’s why it’s ingenious to allow people to repurpose old mainboards because you can later re-use them as server “blades” or as NUC-alikes that can still use the modules.
Random’s probably referring to sweat-equity. Raising value by personal time & effort. Painting a house is cheap if you do it yourself - except for the weeks spent scraping, painting, and the cleanup after. Ask me how I know. But you get what you want, if you can figure out how to do it.
Framework laptops are designed for user repair and user upgrade. The owner should find themselves less reliant on computer repair shops for the former, and would never have been able to do the latter, compared to other commercial offerings. Even at initial purchase, if you don’t want to buy OEM RAM & storage you can shop around.
And if you have the electronics know-how that some others on this forum describe, it’s a pretty forgiving platform for more advanced modification. Like the difference between buying car accessories and making mechanical changes to it’s working parts. A buyer capable of the latter has a lot of options they can explore more cheaply than a typical consumer… except they’re paying for it with time, tools, effort, and owning responsibility for the outcome.
Maybe that’s what you mean with the butcher shop burger example, @Random_Matt ? You can make a better one yourself, cheap, in exchange for effort and accepting responsibility for the result.
@CookingMan Already discussed before, that video that took a rather one-sided stance IMO
Some faults in the arguments too, like claiming you wouldn’t want to upgrade a laptop anyway because “trackpad wear and tear” - just replace it man, 30$
I do wonder why you’re consistently so negative about the FW16 with no real arguments.
Claiming the minor price increase of 300€ (minor in the context of the total price, anyway) over the FW13 dooms the FW16 where the FW13 was fine - even though the additional features you get are MORE than worth the base price upgrade (better CPU, bigger and better screen, battery, much more modularity, better speakers, …).
Claiming nobody would buy it when the FW16 launch seems to have been much more successfull than even the FW13 (and it’s normal that sales slow down after opening a new market segment. After that is steady growth, hopefully)
Seeding doubts that they will continue to support the FW16 when they have a) precedence they can do so with FW13, and b) are even better situated now with an even larger customer base, unlikely to suddenly fail and c) are not financially motivated to drop support for modular laptops like other big companies also selling more profitable soon-to-be-e-waste - since that’s their whole business, even them expanding into the proprietary laptop space would be seen as a very real danger and they would loose most of their existing customers
There’s plenty threads around here voicing real criticism (I made a few posts myself about the IMO weak GPU choice) - your posts are not that, and do not reflect the enthusiasm you claim to have about their success. But maybe it’s just me that this comes off as quite odd
I’m not very negative. I am a big supporter of the latops framework, it is in my opinion the best latops out there.
But framework 16 is extremely expensive for its features if we also take into account that in a few years the framework could be absorbed by companies like dell or hp.
It is a lot of money for a concept that we will not know how it will evolve in a few years without forgetting that it cannot be ruled out that the framework concept is absorbed by another large company.
It’s alright to be careful, but that is exceedingly unlikely IMO
Framework is not a public company, and as such cannot be taken over against their will
Look the CEO in his eyes and say again that you see a chance he will sell out, knowing it dooms the company he was so passionate about
And consider that any company buying framework would know their existing customers would have lost all trust and not sell many more laptops with the promise of “future-proofing”. So this would only be a “decent” move if all they wanted was to eliminate a dangerous competitor because framework continues to near-permanently remove people from the pool of THEIR potential customer base.
Ofc there is a non-zero chance. But with so many eyes on them, I don’t think it’s a realistic concern.
And even if, there is plenty of spare parts in the hands of users that are conscious about repairability, willing to sell their laptops for others to repair theirs. I doubt many FWs would end up in the dump without being resold, since they retain quite a lot of their value many years down the line. In fact, I could see another company/nonprofit/community popping up to buy up frameworks that are not being repaired and reselling modules and parts.
So there is not a huge risk to the future of a FW16 you buy now, at least in terms of repairability. The worst would be no new CPU or GPU upgrades (which any external company could still do themselves). Among all your other weak attempts to sow doubts it does seem like you’re not even trying to believe in anything “framework”
you’re right
you’re wrong (respectfully). And I know you don’t mean what you say because you previously said FW13 was reasonable, BUT THEY GO TO FAR WITH FW16 !1!! Quote:
which other users have so graciously called BS on way before me, since the price difference is actually quite generous for what you get extra.
Ofc FW16 is not cheap, and if you don’t believe them as a company, don’t buy it. But repeatedly sowing doubts in a forum dedicated for it on one of their most active topics when there is not many reasons for that doubt nor any personal reasons for you to continue to be invested in the discussion puts your motives into serious question. You voiced your opinion, and you’re more than welcome to, but you continued to voice your concerns without much of a basis, not adressing arguments others put up to lessen your concerns, and you continue to do so. The only reason I waste my time to reply is because I genuinely feel your motives may have a bias against framework, and if you don’t, I think it is time to move on from a product you apparently don’t trust no matter what we say.
And just for fun because I find the juxtaposition funny
No personal insult meant to anybody in particular, but this is mark thinking.
The reality is that there are plenty of sociopaths out there who would/do happily burn everyone else for personal gain.
Even the current CEO’s passion might change. If the business world jades him and he has a kid to send to school in 5 years, is he still going to feel the same way?
Customers are without doubt accepting the risk that current or future owners will sell the company to new owners which don’t share its stated ideals.
Framework Computer is incorporated as a private, for-profit company. That means it ultimately has only a single mission: to turn a profit. If Framework ever IPOs, its shareholders will have opinions about the company putting such things as “reducing waste” and “right to repair” before the stock value.
Framework could encode a commitment to its stated mission by re-registering as a not-for-profit or as a social purpose corporation.
I personally very much hope that its owners will consider this; until then, any claims made by the company about goals unrelated to profit should be taken with a thirst-inducing helping of salt, whether you like the product or not.
You’re right, they are in the end a company. Which means they will want to make money. I’m okay with that, to a degree, as long as they don’t IPO/sell, which would betray their customers trust.
I wouldn’t mind them reassuring us that they have no intention to IPO/sell, but even if they did, they are not bound to it.
I chose to trust that they won’t, both they and the buyers KNOW it will destroy the company, and LTT will make absolutely SURE to call them out on that.
Maybe you call that naive, but if you assume the worst in everyone (which at this point in time is the CEO, not investors or the “stock market” forcing them to focus on short term profits), then you’ll have to go back to buying throwaway laptops where you have no further interactions with the company actually controlled by investors.
The last part is a reasonable risk, but tbf, I don’t see FW doing so terribly in the future unless someone comes along an does it much better - they got the momentum to keep going IMO.
As for the CEO being or becoming an evil sociopath, no matter how unlikely -
Even if they IPO/sell for whatever reason, as long as they don’t do it for another ~5 years, the current me would not regret investing in a FW16. At that point, there would be plenty parts circulating in the market to at least fulfill the repairability part of the repairability+upgradability promise (and maybe some upgrades).
So, I was looking forward to the FW16, but its excessive price disappointed me a lot and made me desist from buying it. I understand and imagined a higher price, but over 1000€ more than classic laptops with similar performance is exaggerated.
And the price is not justifiable even thinking in terms of future upgrades. Spending 2500€ now and in 4 years another 500(?) for a new GPU, hoping that a bottleneck is not created with the CPU, still costs me more than buying a 1300€ latpot now and another between 4 years, and what I would buy after 4 years will also have all the rest of the modern components, unlike the FW which will still have the old ones.
All this, hoping that FW still exists in 4 years, since all similar projects have gone bad.
But you get what you want, if you can figure out how to do it.