What is going on with Xeon processors?

[Vern_in_IL]

Can't find a new laptop anywhere that has them, a few on clearance, now gone, let alone finding a nicely built laptop that has a Ryzen.

I can't find info anywhere, did Intel discontinue them? Lenovo website mentions xeon processors on their P17 line, but no offerings.

 

[blufeb95]

Intel has stopped making Xeons for Laptops, now the Core i series CPUs with vPro serves the same purposes.

 

[skyactiv]

Get a laptop with the more productive 16:10 format.

https://www.microcenter.com/product/663141/lenovo-thinkpad-t16-gen-1-16-laptop-computer-black

 

[Warstud]

Here's a Dell with a Ryzen Dell.com

MSI with a Ryzen BestBuy.com

 

[blufeb95]

Get a laptop with the more productive 16:10 format.

https://www.microcenter.com/product/663141/lenovo-thinkpad-t16-gen-1-16-laptop-computer-black

For what the OP is looking for you'd want a P16, that has a 16:10 Screen, the only thing the Xeons had going for them was ECC ram support, with you get on the higher end i series processors with vPro now.
https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/p/laptops/thinkpad/thinkpadp/thinkpad-p16-(16-inch-intel)/len101t0041

 

[blufeb95]

The 17" Workstation laptop category is now dead,
Dell, HP, and Lenovo now offer a 16" as the replacement.

 

[skyactiv]

This is 16:10

 

[Vern_in_IL]

Got it!

 

[Merek]

Xeon's were tanks back in the day, I'm still currently using an old E3-1246v3 which is socket 1150, I have a newer i3-13100 which is practically the same thing spec wise but a lot newer and has 12mb of L3 cache instead of having only 8mb. I've been able to use it but I've since borrowed parts to finish another build but for the short time I was able to use the i3 it only felt slightly faster, I think the speed was about the same but it def. felt a bit more responsive when clicking around and opening things.

The biggest advantage once I'm able to start using that new system I can always upgrade down the road to that of an i5, i7, or even the i9, I just got the i3 because it was cheap, would allow me to start using it and wasn't a downgrade from what I was using.

 

[Merek]

This is 16:10

View attachment 147688

I always liked the 16:10 but honestly 16:9 won the battle in the end. I have a Viewsonic 22" 1680x1050 that's currently connected to a retro gaming PC until I can get a proper GPU so I can connect it to the TV. For a computer monitor I liked the "square look" a lot better, I feel that the extra width of the 16:9 mostly allows for more space on the sides for ads.

 

[blufeb95]

Xeon's were tanks back in the day, I'm still currently using an old E3-1246v3 which is socket 1150, I have a newer i3-13100 which is practically the same thing spec wise but a lot newer and has 12mb of L3 cache instead of having only 8mb. I've been able to use it but I've since borrowed parts to finish another build but for the short time I was able to use the i3 it only felt slightly faster, I think the speed was about the same but it def. felt a bit more responsive when clicking around and opening things.

The biggest advantage once I'm able to start using that new system I can always upgrade down the road to that of an i5, i7, or even the i9, I just got the i3 because it was cheap, would allow me to start using it and wasn't a downgrade from what I was using.

I've got a couple systems I upgraded using Xeons because they were alot cheaper than their i5/i7 counterpart, but since Skylake intel locks out using Xeons on consumer boards in the Management Engine.

 

[Merek]

I've got a couple systems I upgraded using Xeons because they were alot cheaper than their i5/i7 counterpart, but since Skylake intel locks out using Xeons on consumer boards in the Management Engine.

I have various servers in the basement that are Xeon's, mostly 1366, 1356, and I have a 2011 which is the newest I have. I keep one of the 1356's running that hosts a dedicated a gaming server that my friends can connect to, it has 10 cores/20 threads and not very fast ghz wise but easily allows for multiple processes all running at the same time.

I always felt like with Intel you got way more performance per core, AMD's aren't really that much faster in the end they just give you a ton of extra threads to make up for it, at least that's my take on comparing them.