sry man but,
nvidia stoped building cards taht are only for mobile, so performance is now much better. a 1650ti in a laptop ist the same chip like a 1650ti for a desktop.
in the old times there was a gtx 960 for desktop and a gtx 960m for mobile and that was a huge difference.
So now they are better. SO what in the fucking hell are you talking about?
Here the difference, sry bro but get your facts right.
Mobile cards were shit before nvidia stoped the costom production, now they ar emuch better. because they use desktop cards, but they often have thermal issues and have lower rate because of that issues but some manufacturers can handle the more heat well.
Let me throw it back at you. What the hell are YOU talking about? Why are you refuting a point I did not make? Are you having some sort of breakdown?
The old series of cards using mobile versions had absolutely no similarities other than name 960 vs 960M as you mentioned, im actually typing this from my old work laptop with a 950M in it since my desktop is currently having parts reclaimed due to a power supply exploding.
It wasn't until recently we've been getting more or less the same as desktop graphics cards shoved into laptops and with the name actually representing performance vs the desktop variants of the cards and that goes for both Nvidia and AMD.
Last generation of laptop graphics cards (1060, 1070, 1080 for Nvidia and 580 570 560 480 for AMD.) Nvidia had excellent performance, very very close to their full desktop versions, the newer cards however have gone a different path. They have much worse performance than their namesakes on the desktop side of things but they draw less power. They are actually extremely power efficient. For a laptop that is a very good thing. Increased battery time and less heat to dissipate. Looking at benchmark compilations of laptops vs laptops you can see there are major benefits going AMD IGPU or MGPU vs Nvidia in certain price brackets. While in the high to super high end Nvidia still holds all the cards.
AMD is just dominating both the "Mobile"GPU and internal GPU market in the low to high end right now, but that doesn't mean that the laptops that end up being pushed out by amd are so much in a different ballpark with price vs performance that there would be no reason to get Nvidia. The price vs performance difference is actually not too bad and anyone that has had good experiences with nvidia has no negative reason of Nvidia to drop them for AMD.
When it comes to processors however, there are soooo many reasons not to go intel.
Price, Heat, performance and power draw. All simultaneously by often very noticeably margins in AMD favor. Its an exact reversal to how it was back in the amd FX days. Intel is now in the position that AMD was then, the only difference is Intel has shown no effort in keeping up with AMD. AMD is using smaller and smaller chip sizes and planning far ahead, while intel is struggling with almost two generation old technology.
When AMD was in that position they basically gave up on doing anything but trying to keep their stake in the price/performance on low to mid end, even at cost to themselves to keep themselves in the market. While investing heavily in new factories and getting new and better technology. Intel now in the same position are basically shooting themselves in the foot, trying to peddle worse processor for more than they ever charged for them while not planning for any technology that might reverse this.
I could say this is a good thing, but it is not. AMD and Intel always fighting over best price and performance is in everyone's best interest, it brings prices down and has technology being forced forward. If they could remain complacent and take no risks just selling the same old processor with new names and the odd % difference in performance and the occasional mark up in price and no investments into new technology being developed. They would. This is clearly the case for any market and any company.
