This is what I don't get about high performance laptops.
Low end Ryzen 3 laptops have four cores, single thread performance within a few percent of the fastest processors in existence and will do something like render a web page at a speed indistinguishable from instantaneous.
The fastest laptops have twice that many cores. And if you actually try to use them, either half of them are low performance cores or they all clock down to a speed that makes them equivalent to a quad core desktop.
Whereas for the same price as a high end laptop, you get a desktop with 12 or 16 high performance cores and >16GB memory which is so much faster for intensive tasks that the laptop should be embarrassed to show up.
Why should I do anything other than buy an inexpensive laptop with a good screen and keyboard and a fast desktop I can access remotely for any kind of intensive workload?
I do agree ultrabook + powerful desktop is the best combo for most people who actually need a powerful computer. that's what I ran for many years. there are a few reasons why you might want a powerful laptop though, mostly coming down the limitations of remote access.
using a GUI over remote kinda sucks imo. even something like text editing is not as smooth as it would be locally. photo/video editing and especially anything 3D (CAD, gaming, etc.) is really painful.
there's also the security implications of enabling remote desktop. it's not a showstopper, but it's something I'd rather not worry about for my personal computer.
and finally, if you have the money for a powerful desktop and a powerful laptop, why not get both?
anyways, I just gave away my old xps 13 and replaced it with a zephyrus g15. it's not nearly as fast as my 9700k + 1080ti desktop, but it runs most games acceptably at 1440p. c++ compilation is very fast, though obviously not comparable to an overclocked 9700k. the portability and overall fit and finish aren't as nice as the xps 13, but now that I'm not taking the laptop everywhere as a student, I don't find it to be much of a compromise.
The real answer for why most do not do this is that IT-organisations are already under-dimensioned and over-burdened and it’s cheaper to maintain a small set of laptop models (which most likely are bought with some sort of support contract) than it is to assemble and support desktop computers.
Low end Ryzen 3 laptops have four cores, single thread performance within a few percent of the fastest processors in existence and will do something like render a web page at a speed indistinguishable from instantaneous.
The fastest laptops have twice that many cores. And if you actually try to use them, either half of them are low performance cores or they all clock down to a speed that makes them equivalent to a quad core desktop.
Whereas for the same price as a high end laptop, you get a desktop with 12 or 16 high performance cores and >16GB memory which is so much faster for intensive tasks that the laptop should be embarrassed to show up.
Why should I do anything other than buy an inexpensive laptop with a good screen and keyboard and a fast desktop I can access remotely for any kind of intensive workload?