https://www.tomshardware.com/news/microsoft-sq1-processor-su...
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/microsoft-sq1-processor-su...
The more interesting comparison is just how much better the ARM macs will be from the x86 ones in comparable workloads and power consumption. Seeing the Apple ARM cores being able to show all they can with proper cooling and less power limitations is something we've been waiting for awhile.
I wonder, and I really wish it's gonna be a game changer, how well they will behave on jobs that go on for hours or days at full CPU load.
There will always be fanboys for Apple and anyone else, but this is effectively a 2 year old CPU winning on a benchmark where I don't think anyone thought it would. That suggests that when the real hardware comes out that it will make Microsoft's ARM efforts look downright anemic.
Of course, I might be wrong, but based on Apple's history, I think I'll be proven right by January.
This leads to the next question - why is Microsoft's device so slow? Are they doing this on purpose or due to a technical limitation? Or some other reason?
At one point Qualcomm developed it's own high performance custom ARM cores, but after a huge fumble on their transition to 64 bit, they just gave up and started licensing stock ARM cores.
ARM is getting ready to license a higher performance extra-big core to anyone interested, so there should be some movement there in the not too distant future.
However, you can definitely blame Microsoft for making a bad call on emulating legacy Win32 software.
They tried to transition to ARM based WindowsRT without supporting legacy x86 software at all. Even today, Windows on ARM doesn't support legacy x86 64 bit programs.
This is not correct. Their CPUs are heavily modified, just not very well executed.
The problem is that Qualcomm puts most its efforts on other parts of the soc, such as the stupid ML coprocessor. Now you have like 5-6 different DSP-like coprocessors.
Edit: oh, and 5G. They spent $$$$ to be the first with working 5G modems that nobody needs.
This is a demonstration of how powerful Apple’s current silicon is in absolute terms, and it also shows that it can run x86 code at more than adequate speed for many use cases.
I’d say not much, and not at all. Even if cooling is a factor the outcome still has the same meaning.
Apple silicon is way ahead, and emulation is excellent to the point of being a non-issue.
A devkit that can supply more watts of electricity and remove more watts of heat would definitely have an advantage.
A most fair comparison would require using the same type of case, power, and cooling for both CPUs.
But we can clearly see the order of magnitude, and it is quite obviously impressive in both of the ways already stated.
iPads are faster than Mac mini’s even with the same thermal differential.
The thermal issue does nothing to dismiss this truth.