Available in 16gbRAM ($1600) and 32gb RAM models ($2000)
Prices have gone up slightly this generation. Whereas the $1500-1600 price point could have gotten you a 17" screen, this only buys a 15" as standard. However given how much smaller and thinner things are now, there is arguably less of a need. From the 20 series onwards, the era of "thicc" laptops has officially come to an end. The tradeoff between a slightly bigger screen size may no longer seem worth it. Wheras the 10 series achieved desktop replacement performance parity and value, the 20 series successfully got things small enough to be truly mobile and convenient.
64 gb variants are available in theory for future proofing but in our experience by the time games start requiring that much memory, we will need to be on one or two generations of GPU beyond this one. Most games are fine with 8gb of RAM or even 4 GB while current gen titles are starting to hit the 16GB wall. Beyond that raytracing is still in it's infancy with less than 20 games that support it and there just isnt enough value in paying a premium to be an early adopter at this time. The raytracing generation will likely have its own "10 series moment" in the future when the technology matures.
The video just below this is also a good brief primer on Full HD, higher refresh vs higher resolution, standard refresh. The answer ultimately being "it depends" and more specifically, on what you play.
In a nutshell 1080p 144hz is for competition / FPS and 4k 1440p at 60hz for the singleplayer backlog
For the purposes of geoarbitrage and backlog gaming, you get more out of a 4K laptop than you do from a typical competitive gaming laptop from MSI or Asus. The 25 ms ping difference between a fast monitor and a slow monitor is nothing compared to the extra 100-200 extra ping you get from being far away from western servers. It would be nice to be able to geoarbitrage for competitive gaming too but the laws around the speed of light kind of prevents that ;) It only makes sense if you actually want to play with locals and experience new gaming cultures and languages.. then a more typical fast refresh full HD machine makes sense... or you could just buy the screen separately in either instance. For most other things the 4k setup is better for both play and work and is "good enough" for all but the highest levels of competitive gaming
MSI vs Asus?
There is a downside to HP especially in SE Asia and places like Taiwan. These markets are largely dominated by Asus and MSI and there is a large network of stores for support and warranty service while HP has largely retreated. This is in part because the gamer cultures and mix is different vs the west. Single player gaming is not natively popular and since most games were never properly localized and the large game publishing houses never prioritised these markets there is a lot less local variety and exposure to that side of the gaming world. Asian locals largely only play the games that are marketed to them, mostly coming from places like Garena and Tencent and F2P mobile is the most prevalent while on PC's, the predominant games are FPS and MMO's so both MSI and Asus have focused on high refresh as well as lower cost full HD screen that better fit local price sensitivities. The competition is tight between the two with differences in models and warranties changing constantly although we would give a slight edge to Asus in both build quality/design and network of stores. For more on this check the two articles below.