You wouldn't? You know that Oculus used to run well on notebook from a couples of years ago, right? In fact it was run fine on MacBook not so long ago. This is pure marketing.
But I understand that being a hater and being well-informed won't go together so I'm not surprised.
I recommend while you claim "pure marketting", you look at what has changed between the early dev models and the current retail version.
Dk2
1080p display (960x1080 per eye)
60 hz refresh 60-75FPS minimum requirements
6 dimensional position tracking
Rift Retail;
2160x1200 diplsay (1080x1200 per eye)
90Hz refresh (90+ FPS)
3d positional sound
So for just pure raw crunching power. the new Rift version requires 2592000 pixels per frame. 90 times a second. thats 233,280,000 pixels per second.
it must also be ablso to calculate this many pixels per second, for TWO distinct display angles. Rendering every scene twice
compared to the older display: 2073600 pixels per frame. 518400 less. that's 20% less power required, just from the display. But it's not even as simple. It's not linear. As you increase the resolutions you increase calculations required, because you increase the required texture sizes and counts. This turns into likely a 50% or closer increase in requirements
Just to further. At 60fps, the lower unit only pushes only 124416000 pixels a second. That means the retail Oc Rift is pushing 180% MORE pixels per second.
, so I'll try again 
