Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 17 Mar 2016.
Not cheap, sadly.
In the grand scheme of things it really isn't?
You have a custom case, power supply, thunderbolt interface etc. Most thunderbolt devices are typically more expensive than that.
At over £400 I think it is hugely over priced.
Cases and power supplies are not expensive (especially not to hardware manufacturers) and then sure, a little bit extra for the Thunderbolt interface and licence. I cannot believe the BOM is more than £75.
The reason its expensive is because its Razer and no one else has anything like this on the market.
It's nice and all but that price is way over the top.
If you subtract the price of the graphics card you could almost buy a complete system for that price.
They've priced it so high the idea is totally dead, again.
Yes - Thunderbolt DEVICES. This isn't a device, it's an interface with the "device" being sold separately and probably costing you in the region of another £500 for the kind of GPU this is intended for.
If it costs the same price as the device it's going to house then I have to agree with the original poster - in the grand scheme of things that's extremely expensive.
The cost of this is well into bonkers-land! A CPU, motherboard, and RAM (assuming not the highest-end kit) would see you in a bit less than the cost of this, I reckon.
With current pricing, I can't see it being the success they want it to be
As usual most of you seem to have missed the point entirely, this, compared to say speccing an improved GPU in a laptop *IS* cheap. End of. Alienware for example, the difference between the best and worst options GPU wise across their range is just shy of £1000. Even a Desktop number equivalent will wipe the floor with their laptop counterparts, So say the enclosure + a reasonable mid range GPU, it doesn't matter how much whining you do, it will always be considerably cheaper.
The early Thunderbolt multi hard drive storage chassis' were into the thousands, without HDD's. So again, it isn't.
The only purpose I see in such a device would be to add gaming capabilities to a non-gaming laptop, in which case it would most likely be paired with a mid-range GPU.
For the price of that + graphics card you might as well go for a gaming laptop and get it over with, without having to lug an extra box around.
Yeah, just wade right in, fella.
Most people, when attempting to insult most of the contributors in a single thread, would come across as crass, obnoxious asshats. Not you though, you're doing just fine.
Yes. Lug the box around. It'd be like me lugging my henge dock around.
Most people don't tend to need/want to game whilst on the move, so they make use of one of these as a dock (Ethernet, 4 USB ports, audio yada yada) and only need to plug it in with 2 cables, a thunderbolt and a power lead. Meaning any peripherals stay plugged in and no faffing about unplugging them everyday come commute time.
When it does come round to gaming time, they're not plagued by crappy integrated GPU's that struggle to run web media, instead they too can have hardware that's semi capable. How is that concept hard to grasp?
Not everybody wants a desktop of any size (case in point, a family member of mine who spends 260 days a year flitting round the world on planes because of work) as it isn't practical for them.
Unless I'm likely to meet them in person, where they will immediately realise i'm abrupt on or off the internet, I honestly don't care, if they get insulted by me in this manner, god help them in the real world.
I'd expect a graphics card included for that.
This one is a bit more reasonable.
/waits for the $100 TW/Chinese alternative.
Then why not just buy a worse option GPU wise laptop and a SFF desktop PC?
I get the reason for wanting to transform a laptop into a full on gaming rig but for north of £400 you could probably build a SFF system instead, minus the GPU obviously.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, there's a lot to be said for the single-device approach. If I have a single device, then: it always has all my files; it always has all my software; I only need pay for one licence for each per-install application; I only have one machine to maintain. If I have two devices, then: I have to synchronise files between the devices; the devices may not have the exact same software installed; I may have to pay for two licences for some packages; and I've doubled my maintenance.
There are advantages to the two-device approach, of course, the biggest of which is that if Device A dies I can be working on Device B while I'm fixing it.
For me, though, having just one device that does everything is the holy grail. It's why I'm so interested by Ubuntu's convergence feature, 'cos if I had a smartphone I could dock and turn into a desktop - and possibly a tablet and a laptop while we're at it, Asus FonePad or PadFone or whichever way around that was - then I'd be a happy chappy. Sadly, the tech ain't there yet, but in five or ten years? S'perfectly possible that I'll be doing everything from a multirole converged mobile.
Separate names with a comma.