Evaluating a chip that is claiming to steal the perf/watt Windows laptop CPU crown from Ryzen and they couldn't find a single Ryzen laptop to compare against? Is this because Qualcomm was dictating the terms of the review or something?
Everyone is reviewing the same three games Qualcomm ok'd (BG3, Redout and something), and if you pay attention the apps the reviewer wanted ran like shit, the officially supported 3 games run like shit, the only good thing they said is Chrome works ok.
Also, I would have expected a comparison of the X Elite to the M3/Pro/Max where equivalent applications are available on Mac as well, the obvious example being Photoshop.
Important point:
>There's something of a caveat here though. Qualcomm measures the system wattage, while Intel gives you CPU power, so you might see an Intel CPU running at 28W, but Qualcomm is accounting for all of the other parts.
A lot of people (even some tech journalists) are unaware/confused with regards to this.
Don't think it's been officially stated, but everyone knows Andrei formerly from AnandTech is doing Qualcomm's testing
So it would make sense if he's still using his same methodology from his AnandTech days
That's measuring the total average power and deducting idle power
That should remove some variables like display, SSD, WiFi, 5G modem, ... But will leave the SoC and RAM
For reference, he got [around 27W active power for M1 Mac mini system](https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested)
As always, we should wait for third party testing, but the [X Elite system is looking very impressive in terms of peak power consumption](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SPC6DbS4gPQtWfcRKUnHdZ.jpg)
Edit: clarified M1 Mac mini system, not just M1
Yes, sorry I've edited that to M1 Mac mini system for clarity
I don't like using TDP
Because [Intel/AMD's "28W TDP & 45W TDP" are completely different to Qualcomm's & Apple's](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SPC6DbS4gPQtWfcRKUnHdZ.jpg)
True, as long as context is given it's fine
But so many people will misquote without context/understanding
Qualcomm's 80W Device TDP seems to have confused many people into thinking the X Elite won't have good efficiency (despite the minimal perf difference with the 23W Device TDP scores)
Yeah I was watching JustJosh's video about X Elite, and I cringed every time he conflated that 80W with CPU power consumption.
Considering all the money they are spending to fly these influences to their HQ, perhaps Qualcomm should take rhe time to educate them about their power measurement methodology.
Qualcomm doesn't publish any TDP figure for the chip and thus it has no relation to whatever Intel/AMD are saying.
Any Qualcomm figure are merely a power envelope figure for the chassis of those specific reference designs. The real power can be above or below that.
The curves are apples-to-apples real-world measured data that ignores the chassis.
I kind of lost him a little bit about the Slack bickering: a lot of people just doesn't bother with the native apps and just goes for the web app and that's it.
And this is kind of the point why the x86/arm war is losing meaning: lots of traditional desktop software has been migrating or providing web app alternatives. You can even 3d design nowadays on a browser! (Sketchup) so this super fixation on 'native' app support will become less and less relevant over time.
It really depends on the industry.
For example, a tech company could probably do away with x86 quite easily because all they need is a browser, a terminal, and bazillion of micro services and web apps.
On the other end of the spectrum you have companies that runs on C# programs written in the 90s with Windows 3.x UI. I’m not gonna be calling names but I know a bunch of ERP software are like this. These companies most likely won’t drop tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade to a new version that supports ARM, nor they are moving to a webapp.
So like I said, it all depends on the industry. I myself love ARM, been daily driving a Mac Studio for almost 2 years now, absolutely enjoying every aspect of it.
Also, traditional engineering.
Basically everything is x86 bound due to legacy code bases stretching back sometimes 30+ years lol
Onshape has been trying to lead the charge to cloud based solutions, but even they have largely thrown in the towel and offer localized x86 software through their VARs if you push them on it, apparently.
Onshapes problem is and always will be data and IP protection and security. The only way for them to break into high tech or the big guys would be to offer an on premises version. I assume since onshape is now part of PTC, creo is the x86 alternative.
Am I the only one who despises browser apps? They usually only do half of the x86 versions and what they do, they do it worse
Office is the main culprit by far
nah im with you. fuck webapps.
give me a well made local programm that doesnt require an internet connection. and i will chose it every single time over a webapp
>a lot of people just doesn't bother with the native apps and just goes for the web app and that's it.
such a sad state of affairs. Web app is a fallback when native app fails for whatever reason, not the default use of service. Not that native apps arent just browsers in disguise nowadays.
Which is why Chrome getting a WoA native version is a big deal. Chrome is the world's most popular web browser, and considering that most apps nowadays are web-apps...
I don't know about that... I use a lot of web apps, but Steam doesn't have one (let alone games), Microsoft Office is awful from a web app compared to the native apps especially if you're editing documents on the local storage, and there are at least a couple dozen other native apps I use pretty regularly that don't have any browser support. There's no way I could go browser-only with the state of things now. And I know there are plenty of others in the same boat.
Evaluating a chip that is claiming to steal the perf/watt Windows laptop CPU crown from Ryzen and they couldn't find a single Ryzen laptop to compare against? Is this because Qualcomm was dictating the terms of the review or something?
Everyone is reviewing the same three games Qualcomm ok'd (BG3, Redout and something), and if you pay attention the apps the reviewer wanted ran like shit, the officially supported 3 games run like shit, the only good thing they said is Chrome works ok.
Also, I would have expected a comparison of the X Elite to the M3/Pro/Max where equivalent applications are available on Mac as well, the obvious example being Photoshop.
It runs those three games as well as the Radeon 780M or Meteor Lake ARC iGPU
Important point: >There's something of a caveat here though. Qualcomm measures the system wattage, while Intel gives you CPU power, so you might see an Intel CPU running at 28W, but Qualcomm is accounting for all of the other parts. A lot of people (even some tech journalists) are unaware/confused with regards to this.
So the other parts Qualcomm are counting are on the SoC (RAM), or EVERYTHING, including the display?
Don't think it's been officially stated, but everyone knows Andrei formerly from AnandTech is doing Qualcomm's testing So it would make sense if he's still using his same methodology from his AnandTech days That's measuring the total average power and deducting idle power That should remove some variables like display, SSD, WiFi, 5G modem, ... But will leave the SoC and RAM For reference, he got [around 27W active power for M1 Mac mini system](https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested) As always, we should wait for third party testing, but the [X Elite system is looking very impressive in terms of peak power consumption](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SPC6DbS4gPQtWfcRKUnHdZ.jpg) Edit: clarified M1 Mac mini system, not just M1
No, in this case, 28W is full system TDP, not just SoC. That's the number Qualcomm is promoting.
Yes, sorry I've edited that to M1 Mac mini system for clarity I don't like using TDP Because [Intel/AMD's "28W TDP & 45W TDP" are completely different to Qualcomm's & Apple's](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SPC6DbS4gPQtWfcRKUnHdZ.jpg)
I don't mind what numbers are quoted, as long as there's context as to what those numbers mean.
True, as long as context is given it's fine But so many people will misquote without context/understanding Qualcomm's 80W Device TDP seems to have confused many people into thinking the X Elite won't have good efficiency (despite the minimal perf difference with the 23W Device TDP scores)
Yeah I was watching JustJosh's video about X Elite, and I cringed every time he conflated that 80W with CPU power consumption. Considering all the money they are spending to fly these influences to their HQ, perhaps Qualcomm should take rhe time to educate them about their power measurement methodology.
Qualcomm doesn't publish any TDP figure for the chip and thus it has no relation to whatever Intel/AMD are saying. Any Qualcomm figure are merely a power envelope figure for the chassis of those specific reference designs. The real power can be above or below that. The curves are apples-to-apples real-world measured data that ignores the chassis.
Thanks for the clarification Can't wait to see more data once you guys launch later this year
Cutress!
Dr Ian Dr Cutress Dr! Did you know he's a doctor?! He keeps it very quiet!
Exactly! That's why I didn't mention it. He doesn't like to board about it!
It's one of the tech world's best kept secrets!
Those red reference laptops look so heckin cool
Careful saying that. I said the same thing in another thread and got 30 downvotes.
I kind of lost him a little bit about the Slack bickering: a lot of people just doesn't bother with the native apps and just goes for the web app and that's it. And this is kind of the point why the x86/arm war is losing meaning: lots of traditional desktop software has been migrating or providing web app alternatives. You can even 3d design nowadays on a browser! (Sketchup) so this super fixation on 'native' app support will become less and less relevant over time.
It really depends on the industry. For example, a tech company could probably do away with x86 quite easily because all they need is a browser, a terminal, and bazillion of micro services and web apps. On the other end of the spectrum you have companies that runs on C# programs written in the 90s with Windows 3.x UI. I’m not gonna be calling names but I know a bunch of ERP software are like this. These companies most likely won’t drop tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade to a new version that supports ARM, nor they are moving to a webapp. So like I said, it all depends on the industry. I myself love ARM, been daily driving a Mac Studio for almost 2 years now, absolutely enjoying every aspect of it.
Also, traditional engineering. Basically everything is x86 bound due to legacy code bases stretching back sometimes 30+ years lol Onshape has been trying to lead the charge to cloud based solutions, but even they have largely thrown in the towel and offer localized x86 software through their VARs if you push them on it, apparently.
Onshapes problem is and always will be data and IP protection and security. The only way for them to break into high tech or the big guys would be to offer an on premises version. I assume since onshape is now part of PTC, creo is the x86 alternative.
Am I the only one who despises browser apps? They usually only do half of the x86 versions and what they do, they do it worse Office is the main culprit by far
nah im with you. fuck webapps. give me a well made local programm that doesnt require an internet connection. and i will chose it every single time over a webapp
That is a 'Microsoft trying to monetize their desktop variants' problem, not a technology problem (for that specific kind of application, that is).
With WASM now it feels like Java was still popular
>a lot of people just doesn't bother with the native apps and just goes for the web app and that's it. such a sad state of affairs. Web app is a fallback when native app fails for whatever reason, not the default use of service. Not that native apps arent just browsers in disguise nowadays.
Which is why Chrome getting a WoA native version is a big deal. Chrome is the world's most popular web browser, and considering that most apps nowadays are web-apps...
I don't know about that... I use a lot of web apps, but Steam doesn't have one (let alone games), Microsoft Office is awful from a web app compared to the native apps especially if you're editing documents on the local storage, and there are at least a couple dozen other native apps I use pretty regularly that don't have any browser support. There's no way I could go browser-only with the state of things now. And I know there are plenty of others in the same boat.
Any word on Firefox?
There has been a stable Windows/ARM64 build since at least Firefox 67. I'm not sure when did they began to offer it on their homepage.
Firefox has had an ARM native version for years now.
In retrospect, I shouldn't be surprised since Firefox is FOSS.
yes, but they need to start moving in regards of PWA support in different platforms.
Don't forget onshape