That's what most reviewers are saying which by the looks of the line up, seems to be the case. It's mainly cause companies didn't want to take the risk of their flagships having "Unproven" AMD mobile cpus. Ryzen 3000 mobile cpus were good but nothing amazing.

Now that AMD has proven that even with their mobile cpus, they are able to kill Intel... Laptop makes will put them on all their laptops next generation.

Yep.

Next year, I expect Dell and Lenovo to pack their very best Ultra-thins will AMD. This year we're just getting a taste of it.

I hope the whole ARM situation won't be a case of replacing x86 but rather, providing a cheaper alternative. Like a Macbook or Surface for the people that can't afford to spend $1000.

If Apple actually does decide to replace their entire Macbook line with ARM, I think they are giving even more reason for people and companies to not consider Macbooks over windows laptops. The whole idea of Macbook Pro is you can have both Apple's OS for their software/app development and also boot to Windows if you need access to Windows Apps. If they go all out on ARM, I think a lot of companies will say nope.

Their decisions in the past like not supporting Vulkan and maybe this rumour as well already made Valve drop support for SteamVR on Apple devices, can't imagine what's gonna happen if they do something that drastic.

Cinebench R20:
Intel i7 7700HQ (45w) (4c/8t) = single thread score : 370.   Multi thread score : 1774.
AMD Ryzen 7 4700U (15w) (8c/8t) = single thread score : 472.   Multi thread score : 2647.

the 7700HQ is a 4 core cpu.
the 4700U is a 8 core cpu.

"how is that even possible? Isn't the 4700U a 15W chip?"

Yes it is :)

AMD did quite alot of optimisations to get their "U" line to be as power effecient as possible.

Part of it is AMD is useing a 7nm chip, and Intel's 7700HQ is on a 14nm node.

Just H now, no Q or K behind it anymore.

Yeah, the 7700HQ is only a 4 core/ 8 thread part, is a bit slow on clock speeds already compared to more modern laptops (2.8Ghz base, 3.4Ghz all-core turbo compared to the 2 Ghz base and 4.1 Ghz turbo), and it got security updates for Spectre/Meltdown/Spoiler/TLBleed and so on that slowed it down further. Add to this that my laptop has it's CPU at a 35W TDP so the CPU rarely boosts past 3.1 Ghz and that the 4700U has 8 physical cores and you'll understand why the 15W chip is much more performant than the old 35/45W chip.

Another part is that Intel wasn't really trying with the mobile 7xxx series. Just compare the models of these last years, including the upcoming Comet Lake model:

You can see that the gains in performance have been massive ever since.

I'm sure the 10710U would also beat the 7700HQ nowadays. Like I said, Intel wasn't even trying with the 7000 series

Sounds like it. I had to replace the battery after about 5 years, but that's probably more so to do with the fact that I ran off battery a lot and left it with low charge quite often. I would leave it out in the (work) truck through the cold winter as well. Didn't understand battery longevity very well back then. Replaced it with a nine cell version and gained an extra hour charge, but that wasn't much more than the few hours it had before. In the last couple years, the screen went blank one day, and I had to replace the GPU thermal pad to get it to work, as it was dried up hard and starting to crumble. Which also meant new CPU thermal paste, which was super dry and tough to get clean. Earlier this year I had to replace the CMOS battery. Other than that, it's been rock solid.

I've had a few Acer laptops now and they've all been quite reliable, and probably would've been even better if I had taken better care of them. Inclined to go with them again, but gotta see what's available on the market. At my first workplace, they eventually got rid of all the HP and Dell laptops because they were always a problem, and were replaced with Lenovo's. They were much more reliable and the models we had were much better built.

Intel Core I9 10875H is a ~25day old  Intel CPU (basically brand new).
its Comet Lake, a highly binned chip at 45watts.

Cinebench R20 scores:
Intel Core I9 10875H (45w)  : Single thread score : 498 ,   Multi thread score : 2853

AMD Ryzen 7 4700U (15w) :  Single thread score : 472 ,   Multi thread score : 2647
AMD Ryzen 7 4800U (15w) :  Single thread score : 480 ,   Multi thread score : 3306
AMD Ryzen 9 4900 HS (35w) : Single thread score : 495 ,   Multi thread score : 4288

So it beats the 4700U.
Theres a 4800U thats pretty close though.
I'd say its safe to claim the 4900HS is a faster chip, at lower power consumption.

Intel has been stuck at 14nm for too long.

"I'm sure the 10710U would also beat the 7700HQ nowadays."

Yes it would.

Cinebench R20:
Intel i7 7700HQ (45w) (4c/8t) = single thread score : 370.   Multi thread score : 1774.
Intel i7 10710U (15-25w) (6c/12t) -  single threaded score : 460  ,   multi thread score :  1863

AMD Ryzen 7 4800U (15w) (8c/16t) : Single thread score : 480 , Multi thread score : 3306

The 4800U beats the 10710U pretty handly though, at less power too.
Intel isnt the "best" cpu to own anymore inside a laptop, reguardless of if its at 15w or 45w.

I cant wait till next generation. My laptop is on its last legs. But honestly even if I don't get the best amd chip I know I'm still getting better performance per dollar and watt than Intel counterpart. 

What I'm thinking off is buying me a medium machine and when the good ones come out maybe give the old one to my nephew. Are we expecting Holliday? That would work out perfect.

I didn't say that it would beat AMD. I just said that between the 7700HQ and today there lies a big gap in Intels mobile chips, even though they stayed at 14nm. The reason why this even was slightly possible is because the 7700HQ was pretty much just lazy filler. Just look at the numbers you posed for the 7700HQ and the 10875H:

7700HQ: (45w) (4c/8t): single thread score : 370   Multi thread score : 1774

10875H: (45w)  (8c/16t): Single thread score : 498  Multi thread score : 2853

That's not enough to beat AMD, not by a longshot, but still a nice increase for a chip on the same node and architecture. But like I said, that's not because the 10875H is so good, but rather because the 7700HQ was so bad that there was much room to improve.