Be aware that the HP Envy x360 15-fe0072ng won't work with the mentioned and linked HP Active Pen. Don't buy it! I know because I own a useless HP Active Pen, now.

You need the following pen: HP Tilt Pen MPP 2.0. It's available in black and silver.

The review should be corrected.

Intel has its own factories
... Intel easily continues to lead with sales of more than 5:1 on the shelves when comparing the availability of really current SoC series

Intel has massive debts of $46 billion with its own factories. Intel has its 5:1 market share in low-cost markets, while AMD is steadily gaining in high-cost and premium markets. This is evident in the server market, where Intel lost $350 million last quarter. This is much, much worse for Intel as AMD currently only has a 20% market share in low-cost markets. AMD is in a good market position in the long term because last quarter AMD reported $1 billion in operating profit and Intel reported $1 billion. $ makes operating loss.

If there were conspiracies, Intel's debt wouldn't have increased from $32 billion to $46 billion.

Then why are they selling us pci-e 5.0 in laptops and at the same time raising prices for SoCs and laptops? For what?

Because Intel currently has a massive operating loss of $1 billion and is currently sitting on $46 billion in debt.

AMD has lost interest in the laptop and desktop market.

No,
AMD is growing slowly and steadily, where AMD struggled with Intel CPU overcapacity in 2H-2022 to 1H-2023 post-Corona. You will see AMD's market share grow again from 3Q-2023. The 6nm Rembrandt is also a very attractive and competitive APU, with which AMD can gain market share by 2025. In a few weeks and months, AMD will have a (2+4) Zen4+Zen4C APU (Phoenix2) and a (4+8) Zen5+Zen5C APU (Strix Point) as well as the (16+0) Zen5 CPU with big iGPU (Strix Halo) massively improve the breadth of the notebook portfolio.

Quote from: NikoB on October 08, 2023, 11:05:03at the same time raising prices for SoCs and laptops? For what?

For exactly and only this reason.

We need 8k monitors (really high ppi on monitors from 23"+ and the clearest ideal text/graphics in 2D everywhere), we need TB5 2 years ago, we need a 512-bit memory controller with RAM bandwidth for an ordinary, mass-market laptop from 250GByte/s, so that it can service all those devices on the buses that they falsely claim.

Why did the same AMD release the crazy 7x45HX series with 28 pci-e 5.0 lines in 2022 (24 free by datasheets), if there are no devices to use these 28 lines and, moreover, the RAM bandwidth is 3 times lower (realistic) than what is needed to service all these lines at the same time?

All 2023 video cards have the infamous pci-e 4.0 x16 (x8 5.0), laptops cannot use pci-e 5.0 SSDs in 2023 because they are monstrously hot - i.e. not energy efficient for laptops.

The question is why did AMD stuff a pci-e 5.0 controller into Zen4? What was the point, like the hybrid 4.0/5.0 Intel controllers in the HX series? Obviously, to throw dust in the eyes of technically illiterate ordinary people who do not understand that version 5.0 is useless, but with it you can extort more money for "progress" that no one can actually use in practice.

To the shame of AMD laptop manufacturers, even with 28 pci-e lines, out of stupid greed they do not output even one USB40 port, as for example in the Asus Strix G713 2023, although such a number of free lines allows you to output a 2x2 matrix from USB40, potentially giving owners such powerful laptops, the ability in the future to connect risers to them at home with aggregation of pci-e channels into one link pci-e 4.0 x8 at least (4xUSB40/TB4 = 4 x pci-e 3.0 x4 = x8 pci-e 4.0 = x4 pci-e 5.0 - just that!). But there is none of this in the released models! Then why are they selling us pci-e 5.0 in laptops and at the same time raising prices for SoCs and laptops? For what?

Quote from: JKM on October 07, 2023, 21:51:09Intel schlägt AMD

Absolut,
die +60% bessere durchschnittliche Multi-Thread-Performance ist plötzlich klar weniger Wert als die +10% bessere Single-Thread-Performance.

Wenn das nicht schlimm genug ist, hat AMD die +60% höhere durchschnittliche Multi-Thread-Performance nicht nur mit den 2 Jahre älteren CPU sowie mit nur 8 statt 10 Kernern (= Mehr-Kern-Effizinz-Vorteil), sondern vorallem hat AMD dies mit ineffizieteren P-Kernen gegen Intels effizienteren E-Kernen erreicht.

Genau so ein (2+8)-Raptor-Lakee bekommt in nur wenigen Monaten schon ordentliche Konkurrenz von (2+4)-Zen4+Zen4C-APUs, die auch eine (mindestens) gleiche Single- wie Multi-Threads-Performance schaffen werden.

In the real world, Intel doesn't give a damn about everything - conspiracies, clearly custom-made articles, like this one, where everything is turned upside down, and the fact that Intel has its own factories, and AMD has nothing except a queue at TSMC, where it is forced pay a higher price for each copy and, in principle, due to the queue and cost, cannot afford mass production, Intel easily continues to lead with sales of more than 5:1 on the shelves when comparing the availability of really current SoC series, and not outdated ones. Moreover, the most interesting series of laptops from manufacturers (take the same Asus - which is always the first to get access on the planet to the newest AMD series, in massive, wholesale quantities) without options only go with Intel, and this is an obvious collusion (through kickbacks) of manufacturers laptops from Intel, which has been dumping to the detriment of profits for the 3rd year already, having almost lost all the cash reserves in its accounts, but having retained its market share by the time it at least manages to switch to the "7nm" technical process in 2024 and thereby not leaving AMD has no chance using non-market methods, requiring investigation by antimonopoly authorities a long time ago. AMD has lost interest in the laptop and desktop market. They will continue to release new series with a great delay, while Intel, as before, despite the technical lagging behind, will appear on shelves around the world much faster and in many times larger volumes, leaving no choice to the average buyer on the planet, who is still interested in laptops and PCs.

As soon as the miserable Meteor Lake comes out without DP2.0+ (80Gbps) without TB5 (despite the fact that some journalists are lying that it is there, although Intel press slides clearly indicate that it will not be there) and with virtually no different performance from Raptor Lake, but more energy efficient, the entire purchased press will scream at the top of their lungs that this is "super progress" in processors, although in fact, already from September 19 it is clear that Meteor Lake is outdated trash that will give nothing to the consumer in 2024 new technologies that are really useful in everyday life.

Intel schlägt AMD

Absolut,
die +60% bessere durchschnittliche Multi-Thread-Performance ist plötzlich klar weniger Wert als die +10% bessere Single-Thread-Performance.

Wenn das nicht schlimm genug ist, hat AMD die +60% höhere durchschnittliche Multi-Thread-Performance nicht nur mit den 2 Jahre älteren CPU sowie mit nur 8 statt 10 Kernern (= Mehr-Kern-Effizinz-Vorteil), sondern vorallem hat AMD dies mit ineffizieteren P-Kernen gegen Intels effizienteren E-Kernen erreicht.

Genau so ein (2+8)-Raptor-Lakee bekommt in nur wenigen Monaten schon ordentliche Konkurrenz von (2+4)-Zen4+Zen4C-APUs, die auch eine (mindestens) gleiche Single- wie Multi-Threads-Performance schaffen werden.

Today, no one is interested in single-core performance, because...all browsers and most software are multi-threaded and benefit greatly from a significant difference in multi-threaded performance.

The Intel version loses in multi-threaded burst performance by as much as 25% and the AMD version by a monstrous 80% for this series. At the same time, the difference in single-threaded performance is only 10% in favor of Intel, and it is 2 generations newer.

Illiterate ordinary people do not understand (although they end up rightly suffering from this due to their own stupidity) that the more tabs there are in the browser and the greater the difference in multi-threaded performance, the more the browser begins to lag and the system has difficulty performing other background tasks.

So, with a difference of a monstrous 80%, the Intel Raptor 1355U has no chance at all, even against Zen3, which is 3 years outdated!

Intel processors with such performance are only suitable for housewives who open one browser and 2-3 tabs on YouTube. Something serious. Moreover, with a loaded background, it simply will not cope with the monstrous difference of 80% in multi-threaded performance compared to the AMD version.

In fact, Intel, with an adequate TDP level, cannot compete with AMD processors even 2-3 years ago. This is total defeat and shame.

Meteor Lake will not improve the situation in any way, because... Intel has already admitted that performance will practically NOT increase even compared to Raptor Lake, but they will become significantly more energy efficient with the same performance, i.e. Meteor Lake, at the same PL1/PL2 levels as AMD, will only approach the 1W performance of AMD processors from 2 years ago! Best case scenario.

Even the fact that HP for some reason deliberately raised the PL1 AMD version by 7W (according to data from reviews) clearly reveals a secret conspiracy with Intel - because and at 30W, the defeat of Intel would be obvious, but a laptop with AMD would still be just as quiet. And at 25W PL1, AMD would still be faster, but at the same time QUIER. In this case, pulsed multi-threaded performance would simply become equal.

The only gap is the lack of USB40/TB4 ports in Zen3 and the need to solder an external TB4/USB40 controller in addition to the retimer - which, by the way, it is not clear why is needed in the Intel version (where the TB4 controller is built directly into the SoC), given that both ports on the one hand and close to the SoC, and the video outputs are also located in the SoC, like the USB part, therefore a retimer is not needed at all. Apparently the quality of the PCB conductors (and therefore the degree of signal attenuation along the buses) does not stand up to criticism...

On the other hand, the 7730U, which is 2 generations outdated (which is still 80% faster with a difference of only 7W consumption) clearly costs significantly less wholesale than the 1355U, which means HP has money to spend on wiring an external TB4/USB40+retimer controller, for the AMD version, with Zen3, it was more than enough, based on officially published wholesale prices. And this, again, is pure redneck on their part.

But it is also obvious that Intel, by hook or by crook, to the detriment of profits, maintains its market share of 75-80%, secretly dumping (with official wholesale price tags) and pursuing a secret policy of pressure on the largest manufacturers of final equipment and goods, because ., this does not allow AMD to sharply increase supplies and sharply reduce the cost of batches with TSMC, which is why they lost interest in the SoC market for laptops and desktop processors, And they succeeded, even at the cost of losing profitability for 2-3 years, thanks to cache reserves earlier , again obtained in clearly non-market conditions, when the antimonopoly authorities pretended not to notice obvious violations. This is in fact a direct reason for an antitrust investigation in the US and other countries, but since... in the USA, Intel is a geopolitical lever, and not just an ordinary company in the IT sector, they To Big To FAIL, like the "systemically important banks". There are no market relations or capitalism anywhere near here - pure imperialism. And the way all these companies now receive multi-billion dollar subsidies under "capitalism" speaks to the complete duplicity of this entire system.

TSMC is forced to disperse funds into unprofitable projects in the West for geopolitical reasons, thereby additionally giving Intel a head start in critical years for them, otherwise Intel in real market relations would be completely bankrupt by 2025. But in any case, fundamental limitations gradually take over in both cases. "1" - "2" nm will obviously be the last song for both in terms of increasing at least some performance by 1W. Then the performance growth curve per 1W will take on an almost horizontal state and the consumer will have to sell "rhinestones" rather than real progress in performance per 1W...

And these same fundamental restrictions will lead to complete stagnation of the smartphone market, they are already leading, regardless of the decline in the real purchasing power of the population on the planet. It just so happened that TSMC (Apple/Qualcomm/Mediatek) and Samsung from 2010 to 2023 advanced much faster in technical processes than Intel, which made it possible to increase productivity by 1W in the smartphone market at a much faster pace (with always strict restrictions on consumption, which is not in the laptop and desktop market, which is why Intel has been successfully getting out of it for the last 5-6 years due to increased consumption) than in the SoC market for laptops and processors for desktops. And thanks to this, it was really beneficial for the consumer to change mobile gadgets frequently; it made practical sense. But since about 2020, this has lost all meaning in the smartphone market - new versions of SoC essentially do not bring any new, more useful user experience compared to models 5-6 years ago. Performance for everyday tasks, if you do not load all pages on the Internet with advertising garbage and analytical scripts, is more than sufficient for this class of tasks. And a new class of problems solved only with real, local neural networks (as in laptops and desktops) requires orders of magnitude more performance per 1W of consumption and RAM capacity measured in hundreds of terabytes, or rather petabytes...

It is obvious that such achievements will no longer happen in the next 20-30 years due to a fundamental dead end in technology. This means that all that remains is to sell "rhinestones"...

Until there is some radical breakthrough in fundamental science. Real progress in all areas, in fundamental science, leads to another super leap in technology.

But it's not even close, not even in laboratories. Perhaps quantum processors will be this new leap, but real quantum processors have been around for many decades...

Würde man Äpfel nicht mit Bananen vergleichen, sondern aktuelle CPU Generationen im mobilen Segment wären AMD und Intel im Singelcore on Par und Multicore Intel sehr weit abgeschlagen, über die Effizienz möchte man da gar nicht mal mehr nachdenken.
Die igpu vom AMD ist mehr als doppelt so schnell, die was Intel Pendant.

Genauer betrachtet hier:

link cpu-monkey.com/de/cpu-intel_core_i7_1355u
link cpu-monkey.com/de/cpu-amd_ryzen_7_7840u

Alte AMD Technik, die moderne Intel Technik nur im Multicore schlägt. Her je, das ist eher 'nen Blamage für Intel als ein Triumph. Wenn man verschimmelte Äpfel gegen frisch gepflückte, vergleicht und diese nur im Bereich bessere Farbe aber schlechteren Geschmack negativ punkten, ist das doch kein Sieg und vor allem kein Test der den Namen Test verdient. Dann müssten die Ausgangsbedinungen wenigstens vergleichbar sein (Architektur, Herstellungsprozess)

Aber mit 'ner markigen Headline ohne Sinn und Verstand ... Aua

Die Titelwahl finde ich frech: Intel schlägt AMD.
Obwohl man 2 Geräte vergleicht, bei dem es sich bei der AMD-Variante um eine CPU/Plattform handelt, die 2 Generationen älter ist.

Jetzt könnte man freilich argumentieren, dass ja HP diese Modelle zeitgleich anbietet.
Allerdings habt ihr Euch selbst in einem Artikel über die AMD Modellnummernpolitik beschwert, die es für Konsumenten wieder schwerer machen, alte von neuen Generationen zu unterscheiden. Warum setzt ihr als führendes Magazin nicht ein Zeichen und verkauft bei der Wahl der Titel die Leser nicht ständig für dumm? Immer wieder lese ich bei Euch von einem neuen AMD Notebookmodell, nur um erst beim Lesen des Artikels feststellen zu müssen, dass es sich um eine alte Generation handelt.

Dieser Titel setzt dem noch die Krone auf.
Der eigentliche "Titelkampf" beginnt doch erst mit Meteor Lake im Dezember.

QuoteSowohl beim HP Envy x360 15 (2023) mit Intel-Prozessor als auch bei der Variante mit AMD-Prozessor ist das gleiche OLED-Display von Samsung verbaut. Der Vergleich mit dem HP Envy x360 15 AMD zeigt jedoch Unterschiede zwischen den Modellen. Die durchschnittliche Helligkeit ist mit knapp 380 Nits sehr ähnlich und mehr als solide.

Allerdings zeigt sich, dass das OLED-Panel der Intel-Variante sowohl vor als auch nach der Kalibrierung schlechtere durchschnittliche DeltaE-Werte liefert. Die Farbwerte liegen vor der Kalibrierung bei 4,7 und nach der Kalibrierung bei 3,8. Zum Vergleich: Die AMD-Variante lag bereits vor der Kalibrierung bei einem Wert von 3,1 und konnte durch die Kalibrierung auf 2,4 verbessert werden. Bei den mittleren DeltaE-Werten für die Graustufen waren die Unterschiede ähnlich. Das Intel-Modell lag vor der Kalibrierung bei einem Wert von 5,2 und nach der Kalibrierung bei 2,9. Das AMD-Modell lag bereits vor der Kalibrierung bei 2,9 und konnte sich auf 0,6 verbessern. Es könnte sein, dass die AMD-iGPU das Display minimal besser ansteuern kann als die Intel-iGPU.

All this does not matter, because... all NB measurements are clearly incorrect - including the PWM frequency with a difference of exactly an order of magnitude in favor of AMD and a shameful contrast for both - and, surprisingly, almost the same (with a monstrous order-of-magnitude difference in the PWM frequency).

QuoteDie AMD-Variante konnte hier insgesamt jedoch knapp vier Prozent besser abschneiden.

This is a direct lie from the author - from the review of the AMD model it is clearly visible that the 7730U is literally 80% faster than the infamous 1355U in sustained mode and by as much as 25% in impulse mode according to Cinebench R15 graphs for both variants.

At the same time, memory tuning in the BIOS even in the Intel version is extremely shameful, which is clearly visible in the tests.

QuoteDie durchschnittliche Lautstärke unter Last ist mit 27 dB(A) noch besser als beim AMD-Pendant und wird von den zum Vergleich

The author is again disingenuous (or, if you prefer, doesn't say enough) - the AMD version has PL1 = 37W, the Intel version has PL1 = 30W. But the difference in performance in favor of the AMD version is monstrous +80% in PL1 mode and +25% in PL2 mode for Cinebench R15 impulse and sustained performance tests. In fact, the Intel version is antique, outdated trash, which must be immediately sent to the bulldozer of all batches, or the price relative to the AMD version should be 35-40% lower. Buying a laptop for more than 1000 euros with such shameful processor performance in 2023 does not stand up to criticism and is a waste of money. Not to mention the screen is dangerous for the eyes.

Again, I draw attention to the idiocy of HP marketers (HP engineers are just their slaves and carry out their will) - despite the fact that Intel in its presentations specifically emphasized that it made the built-in TB4 controller so that the ports could be easily routed externally in laptops symmetrically on both sides (convenient for both right-handers and left-handers) - the idiots at HP again made both ports on one side, which excludes comfortable use by left-handers and is inconvenient in some cases even for right-handers. With so much space, what prevented them from bringing them out on both sides, other than the stupidity of marketers?

Even the cooling system could be much better, as can be seen at first glance at the internal structure of the laptop.

Another worthless product from HP. And a strange review, based on the data provided...