Mousing around the desktop using the Razer Orochi... who knew that smaller can be more comfortable? I think it's all in the shape. The shorter cable also helps a lot in reducing clutter - the Microsoft mice was designed for desktops, and hence have a cable length too long for laptop use.
Now to figure out how to "fix" the laptop's Bluetooth to recognize the Razer Orochi 2013 properly. (I also got a new mouse mat to go along with it.)
I need to get used to high DPI settings without any acceleration in CS:GO fast. At least it's tied to applications, so on the desktop, I can still use it comfortably with the exact same precision and acceleration.
For some reason acceleration settings in Razer Synapse 2.0 also affects the laptop's trackpad.
It really depends on what you need. If being able to take it places is really important , just get a laptop. If you're wanting to build it yourself, there are some pretty small ITX cases from Silverstone and CoolerMaster, just get one with a standard PSU and make sure your future GPU will fit.
Also, I'd keep the 500 GB WD drive as a storage drive and grab a 120GB SSD for the OS and Apps. That's the wonderful thing about desktops - you can have multiple drives. I personally have a SSD and 3 1TB HDDs. Granted, my case is huge, lol. I have a Corsair 650D.
Seems like I'm going to go for a recent Core i5 that's not ULV, then.
This is gonna get interesting - a laptop can be easily carried as carry-on luggage, while a mini desktop or HTPC might be stretching it. Individual components, though, should be a sure-fire as long as there's not too much of them.
*wonders about salvaging the 500 GB WD in his dead desktop*
Eh, even then, you're much better off quickly reading up on what beats what. You should make the decision on what specs you want before you go looking in stores. Also, it's not a linear score. Something might need to be twice as fast as something else to get .2 higher. In other cases, not. It's too unreliable.
Re OpenGL, AMD is usually much better, but it all depends on optimisation. For certain OpenGL programs (and OpenCL Programs) the vendor has worked with Nvidia to make it better, but from what I've noticed, when Nvidia is better, it's by a small margin. When AMD is better, it's by a massive lead. I couldn't tell you for Intel, but I don't believe it's too bad for openGL. Have a look at some benchmarks of programs you intend to use.
Depends on what you're using to transcode, but two things to note: firstly, for dedicated transcoders (handbrake and the like) they will mostly use as many threads as you can throw at them. For those, quads are great. Secondly, if you have software that will use it, Intel's Quick Sync can drastically improve transcoding. So that's worth a look.
On the other hand, the AMD APUs are going to be 50-100% better for gaming, but neither is going to work for 1080p. The other option is a desktop build with an i5 quad and a Nvidia 550/AMD 7770. Desktops are much better value for money (and you already have a screen/keyboard/mouse, don't you?) and more upgradeable. Means you can also use a SSD OS/App Drive and a separate storage drive.
WEI scores are absolutely useless, for the record.
The Trinity APUs are pretty underwhelming, although a desktop PC will be a much better option if you don't need portability.
Core i5/i7 for notebooks really depends on whether or not you need a quad-core. In fact, even the quad i7s are a decent speed now, so still deal well with lightly-threaded loads. The original mobile i7s were 1.6Ghz, when the i5s were 2.4GHz (usually), so the i5s were much better with single threaded stuff, but now you have like 2.4GHz+ i7s, so there's no reason to avoid the i7s other than cost and battery life.
What is the purpose of the PC that you need? Gaming/productivity/editing/programming/etc? Portable or not? If not, normal-sized PC or does it have to be small form-factor?