Bullrun

What are other fundamental design flaws (like the PCH not being cooled properly) which they have to improve on?

The 17.3" with a 15" keyboard. A bigger keyboard would definitely fit the chassis.

I won't say the heatsinks are a design flaw, they do the job. But they need tighter tolerances from Foxconn. There should be no stories of warped heatsinks in forums. The aluminum duct tape - exhaust mods were addressed with a simple solution. It's time for better QA with heatsinks.

I voted for $50 as fair with or without G-Sync. Though, I really think that is overpriced for the actual cost difference. RJTech charges a $30 dollar premium between G-Sync and non G-Sync GPUs. I believe $1 is closer than $50, unless those G-sync stickers are expensive to produce.

THIS >>>17.3" 4K/8K 120Hz:

News&Event?News Release?Japan Display Inc.

EDIT:

Clevo R&D has product meetings for 2016-17, so if you have anything to add to this thread do it now!

Few points that came up:

- Should we expand use of MXM desktop GPUs?

- Should we use MXM 3.0b with Mobile BGA CPUs?

- Should we launch 13" super monster?

- Should we make 18.4 model?

- How critical is storage? Shall we implement more of M.2 drives and drop 2.5" altogether?

Don't drop 2.5" yet. While M.2 SATA SSDs are comparable in performance to 2.5" SSDs in light workloads, they aren't for heavier workloads. It's physical: more NAND chips = more parallelism/interleaving. The number of controller channels used will determine performance too between 2.5" and M.2. More channels = more parallelism/interleaving. Generally, 2.5" uses 8 channels while M.2 may use 4 or 8 depending on the model.

Don't get caught up in M.2 PCIe sequential numbers. In an OS environment, a higher performance SATA SSD will beat most PCIe SSDs. Look at the low queue depth random numbers for PCIe. They aren't there yet. In steady state - real world performance, a 2.5" SSD is still a top choice.

There aren't enough choices for NVMe drives yet. The price is prohibitive.

2.5" offers a capacity advantage too. Currently, 2TB size is available in HDD and SSD and M.2 is only at 512GB.

The ZM/DM has it right, two of each. It's understandable where size constraints dictate more M.2 usage. Where space isn't an issue, 2.5" drives are still the better choice in many usage scenarios.