Contra: -verlöteter RAM

Trifft zwar zu, aber ist eben auch dem Prinzip geschuldet.
Warum wird vom gleichen Autor, das nicht ständig bei jedem neuen Macbook angekreidet? Das gibt schon ein ordentliches Geschmäckle...

Quote from: LolROFL on Yesterday at 12:05:14The scientism is just a modern form of religion/control.

But it's good to de-industrialize ones economic competitor enemies ;)

QuoteOn the laptop side, the Zen 6-based Medusa Point

If Medusa Point is based on RDNA4 and comes without transformer model based upscaling, which NVIDIA introduced some time ago already and NVIDIA's N1(X) APU is a thing this year already, I'm not sure I'd be interested in Medusa Point much. Not even talking about CUDA. Also, AMD needs to catch-up to NVIDIA' ray-tracing and path-tracing power efficiency:
pcgameshardware.de/Radeon-RX-9070-XT-Grafikkarte-281023/Tests/vs-RTX-5070-Ti-5080-Release-Benchmark-Overclocking-1467630/3:
Right now, depending on the game, NVIDIA is 1.3 to 2.88 times more energy efficient in path-tracing, the more path-tracing-heavy a game is, the more behind is AMD.
5070 Ti is 300 Watt TDP
RX 9070 XT is 304 Watt TDP
As such, one can compare the FPS/Watt on that table easily. RDNA4 improved nicely over RDNA3 in path-tracing power efficiency, but is still behind NVIDIA by quite a lot (several GPU generations or one could also say several full node jumps (a node jump is a 25% to 33% power efficiency improvement)). So, if you care about path-tracing (not to be confused with ray-tracing) (in ray-tracing AMD is still behind, tho, by like 1 GPU generation or 1.26 times on average, according to the table), the choice to get a NVIDIA GPU is clear.

(the following values are a bit exaggerated to make my point clear) What would you choose, a 6.8-inch display that weights 100g (3.5oz) (and as rigid and no other weight related issues), or a 6.3-inch display that weights 230g (8.1oz)? I'd so choose the 100g phone every time.