• narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    To me it felt like previous Windows on ARM attempts: promised a lot, released with problems (mainly compatibility this time), then quickly forgotten because x86 chips caught up anyway.

    See you in 2-3 years!

    • Tamo240@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Definitely had issues on first release, but a lot has improved since then without getting much coverage. Btw I wouldn’t say that x86 has ‘caught up’ especially if your metric is power efficiency, not just raw power. Until we see a realistic RISC-V offering arm will likely remain king in that space.

      • narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        I always hear power efficiency as an argument that ARM chips are magically better at, but Ryzen AI 300 and Intel Core Ultra 200V series seem to be very competitive with Qualcomm’s offering. It’s hard to compare 1:1 as the same chip in different laptops can be configured very differently in terms of TDP and power curves and the efficiency “sweet spots” aren’t the same for all these different chips. Core Ultra 200V is also awaiting more thorough testing, but it seems to be right up there with the Snapdragon.

        I honestly found the Snapdragon X very underwhelming after all that marketing of how much better it was than Apple’s M3 and Intel’s and AMD’s offerings. By the time the Snapdragon was actually available in end-user products, AMD’s and Intel’s competing generations were right around the corner and we’ve also seen a vastly improved M4 chip (although only in an iPad so far, so meh). Add to that the issues that you’ll encounter because while Windows’ x86 to ARM translation layer has certainly improved, it’s nowhere near as seamless as what Apple did.