If by "conspiracy" you mean "business deals where Intel uses their financial clout to compel companies to not provide AMD options", then yes, that is definitely provably happening.

I can't use google fu to find it now, but I swear I read something about this in the last 6 months or so. The best I have is from 2007: https://fortune.com/2007/02/15/suit-intel-paid-dell-up-to-1-...

This might not be so true after CES is done.

I was watching Linus Tech Tips[1] video yesterday, and Asus had a new array of nice laptops (albeit, gaming laptops) that were AMD based, including a 13" one with decent AMD CPUs

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGUESEq75ZI

About the only big shortcoming is good Thunderbolt support with AMD. I think that will gain parity eventually, but will probably be in the USB4 timeframe over the next couple years.

I watched the same videos, and will be looking at laptops over the next few months, so may well go the AMD route myself.

While I hear what you're saying, I think YMMV with Thunderbolt as a hard requirement.

When I bought my laptop a couple of years ago, I made sure that it had TB3 for future-proofing, but I have yet to use it, and I suspect that I'll never use it over the course of the laptop's lifetime (and I have a tendency to keep my laptops in use for a long time).

I think having USB-C is good enough for the majority of "normal" users, although I can appreciate that TB is probably a must have for some power users.

I mostly agree... I use a TB/USB3 dock at work, it works in either/or mode, though USB mode graphics sucks, it's okay for getting work done (web platform development, mostly text/terminal).

I was only pointing it out as pretty much the only thing that's likely to be a significant issue for many, especially if you're doing any kind of casual gaming while wanting to dock, vs plugin a few separate items. I use a desktop at home, so not as concerned personally.

> I mostly agree... I use a TB/USB3 dock at work, it works in either/or mode, though USB mode graphics sucks, it's okay for getting work done (web platform development, mostly text/terminal).

Not sure if you're aware, but you're presumably using your dock in a config where it's using DisplayLink for the display output. Configurations exist that do HDMI/DisplayPort passthrough over USB/TB, which have native performance.

I know.. I had to use it via USB for a few days when the USB-C/TB port failed on my laptop until it was repaired.

I would appreciate a high-end 15" AMD "clunker" with an amazing screen, though. Preferably a ThinkPad. But such a thing is nowhere in sight either, no?

I can't work with laptops smaller than 15".

Lenovo has a bunch of AMD ThinkPads (X395, T495, and T495s at a 14" size, E595 at 15") with Ryzen 3000 series CPUs, but the 15" model is from the E series which isn't one of their high-end series. The T495 and T495s seem to be a really nice machines though, even before a Ryzen 4000 refresh: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Lenovo-ThinkPad-T495-Review-bu... - quote: "Overall, we have to admit that the ThinkPad T495 is the better T490, especially considering its lower price." (The T490 is the Intel version) and https://www.notebookcheck.net/Goodbye-Intel-Thinkpad-T495s-w..., the title of which is "Goodbye Intel: Thinkpad T495s with AMD Ryzen is the better choice for many users"

If these prove popular (and given that they're quite a bit cheaper than the Intel models, they might), a 15" T-series Ryzen Thinkpad probably won't be too far off.

I skipped on these as the one I was going to get had single channel RAM, have they fixed this ?

The T495 is available with dual channel memory. 8GB of soldered on ram is available on all models and the 3500u and 3700u models are available with 16GB soldered on. You can then add an additional 8GB or 16GB in the sodimm slot.

If you want to save some money quality 3rd party sodimms are available for a fraction of the price Lenovo wants and it takes about 5 minutes to install one. This is what I chose to do.

The problem with that is you'd need to match to the soldered-on memory specs to gain all performance benefits, as opposed to just buying a matched set and plugging it in yourself. You're also stuck with whatever highest common clock speed all the RAM would support instead of whatever the maximum the memory controller would allow.

I'm afraid the reality is that finding a laptop without at least some of the memory soldered on is increasingly difficult. Some T series Thinkpads prior to 2019 did but that ship has sailed and there were no AMD T series Thinkpads prior to May of 2019. So installing a matched set is not an option in the T495.

One of the great things about the T series of Thinkpads is that access to replace memory and storage is quick and easy unlike many modern laptops. Another advantage is that they are heavily documented and have a vibrant community around them. This means determining the memory specs needed to match the soldered-on memory is a rather trivial exercise. If any one is looking to purchase a T495 matching the soldered-on memory means using a PC4-19200 CL17 unbuffered non-ECC sodimm. You should be able to find a good brand module for about 1/5th of what Lenovo wants to factory install the additional memory.

Generally speaking Lenovo has been on top of Ryzen, especially since Zen+

They announced yesterday a bunch of Ryzen 4000 laptop chip news, and a version of Dell's G5 15 Special Edition laptop is planned with one of these.

https://www.engadget.com/2020/01/06/dell-g5-15-se-amd-ryzen/

>A highend 13" AMD based Linux friendly laptop would be utterly amazeballs.

Such as the Thinkpad x395 I am using, with Ryzen 3700U.

I second this. Been using the X395 with the R3700U and it's been a blast.

> I'm convinced there is a conspiracy that prevents laptop manufacturers from shipping AMD chips on 13" high end laptops.

Based on the Anandtech review of a Surface Laptop with Intel and AMD versions (https://www.anandtech.com/show/15213/the-microsoft-surface-l...) I suspect the conspiracy in question is "the small batteries found in 13" laptops would make the power efficiency shortfall a bit too obvious".

There's really no conspiracy. Hardware builders just have other requirements. If AMD"s laptop chips were really better so far (this is actually very debatable), they were by a slim margin for some use cases. Not enough to offset existing business agreements with Intel, the more mature Intel laptop platform (it's more than a CPU, but also motherboards and wireless chipsets) and Intel's more mature - and already existing - supply chain and general mature manufacturer support.

AMD is now very popular amongst home PC builders because they make better chips for the money and there's not many other requirements to consider. But AMD still has a lot of inroads to make because with premade hardware builders - whether it's laptops, office PCs or even servers. For example, although AMD is making way in the server space, it's not going as fast as one might expect for them having the clearly superior server chip (for most use cases) for quite some time now.

For hardware builders it's simply a time and money investment to start using AMD hardware. And although AMD is convincing them to do it - having what appears to be clearly superior chips in the laptop space is definitely a big plus there - it's something that takes time.

>> Not enough to offset existing business agreements with Intel

Translation, Anti-Trust violating agreements that Intel has been guilty of in the past

There are also legal business agreements like "buy 100,000 CPUs from me and you'll pay 10% less", which are really commonplace, don't violate antitrust at all, and AMD will also be negotiating these with major OEMs all the same.

The issue with those is when you look at the business the customer does to begin with. If they sell 103,000 laptops and you say "buy 100,000 CPUs from me and you'll pay 10% less" and a competitor sells 255,000 laptops and you say "buy 250,000 CPUs from me and you'll pay 15% less" and so on, always offering the deal where you choose between a discount for making >95% of your sales volume Intel or paying retail prices for CPUs, the fact that you're specifying that proportion of their sales as an absolute number rather than a percentage doesn't seem like it ought to change very much.

>for the money

No, they now simply make better chips, period.

In addition they are also cheaper.

Users don't want to switch, either. I won't take a chance on an AMD machine to save a couple of dollars.

Maybe I'm being rational, maybe I'm not, but I'm sure I'm not the only consumer who feels this way. I want to buy the "happy path" when I'm getting a product.

What's the chance your taking? Intel has dropped the ball in many ways, both long and short term, from their handling of Spectre/Meltdown, to pricing, to technology rollouts, and more. AMD has been a reliable player in the CPU hardware space for decades.

So, please explain what risks you are taking on by choosing a device that satisfies your needs but has an AMD CPU inside instead of something else.

I'll forever be baffled at people treating one of the biggest semiconductor companies in the world which has historically released products which easily outlast the rest of the components in the system as some fly-by-night alternative to Intel.

This sentiment also caused my family to get a Pentium4 over the superior Athlon64 years back and I'm still salty.

...and the Athlon XP in early P4 days (Willamette and Northwood).

...and the Athlon in P3 days, but that was a closer call.

...and (IIRC?) the K6 in P2 days, but that was before my time.

In retrospect, AMD's fallout past the Athlon64- and prior to the Ryzen-era is actually the odd one out in the company's history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_microprocessors

I think most consumers are not very knowledgeable of chip manufacturers. A business guy buys Dell/lenovo, couldn't care less what chip is inside.

At most they might check if it has a graphics card, or number of cores

IT professionals usually buy the hardware, and they're typically somewhat familiar with the market. As far as CPUs go, their options are "does this person need an i5 or an i7". When buying server hardware they'll gloss over the selection of Xeon systems their budget can accommodate.

You rarely get consequences for buying Intel/Cisco/etc, no matter how overpriced and otherwise maladapted their products may be.

So Intel ~= IBM? Things make so much sense after realizing this.

Users don't switch. They buy whatever is in their price range

I'm using a 13" hp envy x360 like that. It's really good for the price although would have fanspin issues until after some bios issues. Also yeah Intel has probably tried to bribe laptop manufacturers to not provide an AMD option as another comment showed.

late edit: Instead of "would have fanspin issues until after some bios issues." I meant "would have fanspin issues until after some bios updates."

After installing those it became properly functional and a great laptop thought it made me wonder how they managed to ship with such a big, obvious and easily resolvable issue in the device.

Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Intel literally has a more power-efficient SoC? I wouldn't be surprised to see more 13" AMD laptops with the 7nm die shrink next generation but even then I don't see AMD being more efficient than Intel 10nm.

Why?

well I made two claims but 1: Because Intel 14nm was more efficient than AMD 12nm. i'm not make this prediction with high confidence. 2: Independant of the competition 7nm should offer insane enough battery life in a 13" form factor to be "good enough".

Intel have a co-marketing brand they call "Ultrabook" where most components are Intel which prevents laptop manufacturers from using the same chassis/model for AMD.

Their new "Project Athena" might be the same thing.

Something new at CES 2020

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3512246/asus-rog-zephyrus-g1...

Out of curiousity, what would stop someone from just buying an AMD chipset, a 13 inch screen, and all of the rest of the components, 3d printing the chasis, and then assembling it all yourself?

From other comments, the conspiracy is that AMD either doesn't give a shit or is very bad at demonstrating otherwise. No evil required, just laziness and other priorities.

Zen and Zen+ mobile chips had really crappy idle power usage, so they're not that suitable for ultraportables. It may change with this generation.

Aren't AMD processors (and virtually every processor with speculative execution) vulnerable to Spectre?

Yes and no. Most of the vulnerabilities are Intel-only and only a few apply to AMD as well.

Some of Intels design decisions made them uniquely vulnerable to Spectre and it's not simply a matter of them being a "bigger target" if that's what you're driving at. Yes though every CPU has theoretical Spectre vulnerabilities.

Just as almost any other consumer processor made in the last 10 years, what is your point?

I was confused by this: "I've had to put off buying ... all laptops (mac/pc) because it appears Intel's newest CPUs are still vulnerable to Meltdown/Spectre. ... A highend 13" AMD based Linux friendly laptop would be utterly amazeballs."

There are a couple of these MDS vulnerabilities that also exist on AMD, but the vast majority are Intel-specific. Thanks not to say that people won’t find some on AMD, but a) they haven’t yet, b) there are at least some that are much less likely on AMD than Intel, and c) the greater number of cores and channels is likely to make practical problems even less likely. Some of this also applies to ARM.

Spectre is basically a new variant in the longstanding category of timing attacks on hardware. There are things hardware vendors may be able to do to limit the impact, but it's just something software developers are going to have to learn to live with, like cache timing attacks. You mostly fix it by making the software different, not the hardware, because the performance benefits of having caches or speculative execution are too large to abandon in general.

Intel's trouble is that they're doing that kind of speculation across more security boundaries, which not only makes the attack more powerful (e.g. reading memory from the kernel/hypervisor or another process/VM instead of the active one), it also makes the mitigations more expensive. The benefits of speculative execution in those specific cases aren't worth the cost, but CPUs have a long lead time, so they're still selling silicon where that isn't fixed.

And then losing more performance to the mitigations than they gain from the speculative execution while enabling a greater attack scope for any software that doesn't implement the mitigations properly (or at all).