Quote from: Lorry on May 25, 2022, 23:07:27
No, 680M should be roughly on par with MX570. GTX 1650 Max-Q is more than twice as faster in games and professional applications, and RTX 2050 is not even comparable to the AMD iGPU.

I read different benchmarks results than you. The Radeon R680M (it's already RDNA2 arch) is twice the performance of MX450 and RTX2050 is also a bit more than twice the performance of MX450. So the benefit is only the dedicated memory and the RTX capabilities of Nvidia.

How many m.2 slots?

512GB..... Why?

Quote from: Crowl on May 25, 2022, 15:33:09
Benchmarks seem to put the 680m ahead of a mobile 1650 and while the 2050 is better than either of them, it's lead is more marginal than "way ahead", so the previous commenter questioning the value of it at the expense of a fair amount of battery life has a very good point.

No, 680M should be roughly on par with MX570. GTX 1650 Max-Q is more than twice as faster in games and professional applications, and RTX 2050 is not even comparable to the AMD iGPU.

Quote from: riklaunim on May 25, 2022, 01:15:59

Quote from: chrisDo on May 24, 2022, 23:26:41
why anyone would want a 2050 when 680M with LPDDR5 is not far behind in performance but is far ahead in battery life ?

2050 should be way better than GTX 1650 so also better than 680M. It won't be groundbreaking but still... and it gives access to Nvidia technologies which may be a benefit to some. Plus the sticker to lure unaware customers ;)

Benchmarks seem to put the 680m ahead of a mobile 1650 and while the 2050 is better than either of them, it's lead is more marginal than "way ahead", so the previous commenter questioning the value of it at the expense of a fair amount of battery life has a very good point.

This would be the perfect laptop for a developer.
The dealbreakers are only 16gb ram, no USB4 for a Thunderbolt dock, and a relatively small battery.

If they made this with 32gb LBDDR5x, USB4, and 100wh battery I would buy it instantly

Quote from: chrisDo on May 24, 2022, 23:26:41
why anyone would want a 2050 when 680M with LPDDR5 is not far behind in performance but is far ahead in battery life ?

2050 should be way better than GTX 1650 so also better than 680M. It won't be groundbreaking but still... and it gives access to Nvidia technologies which may be a benefit to some. Plus the sticker to lure unaware customers ;)

why anyone would want a 2050 when 680M with LPDDR5 is not far behind in performance but is far ahead in battery life ?