• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Snapdragon X Elite Reviews


The Vivobook S 15 OLED comes with a 70 Wh battery pack which enables it to deliver better battery life than many AMD or Intel notebooks, but Apple's MacBook Air 15 M3 delivers on average a 40 percent better battery life, with a smaller 66.5 Wh battery pack. Browsing the web or watching movies aren't really too taxing for the Snapdragon X Elite, but under heavier loads the battery life drops off a cliff
So not better on battery life

When it comes to application performance, the Snapdragon X Elite offers good multicore performance in benchmarks like Cinebench 2024 and PCMark 10, but it falls way behind in most other tests, ranging from video encoding to file extraction and document conversion, with Intel Core Ultra 7 155H based notebooks often pulling ahead by 50 percent or more.
So 100% optimised to deliver synthetic numbers rather than actual workloads

this is another area where the Snapdragon X Elite doesn't deliver, and most games are unplayable at 1080p resolution. Many games don't run on the Qualcomm chip for obvious reasons, but many that do, suffer from texture and graphics glitches at times. Most games don't even manage 30 FPS at reduced graphics settings, let alone 60 FPS,
Awesome :D


Sounds like some great reasons to buy one!
 
I’m surprised people are even trying to play games on these, and I’d be surprised yet again if they were to get anything other than bad results gaming.



So not better on battery life


So 100% optimised to deliver synthetic numbers rather than actual workloads


Awesome :D


Sounds like some great reasons to buy one!
 
I’m surprised people are even trying to play games on these
Why are you surprised? You shouldn't be - to be successful they need to do everything an x86 laptop does, as well as an x86 laptop does, and without you noticing that it's any different.

@Mesai is adamant that you should buy one of these over an x86 laptop, because they are better in every way.
 
Last edited:
Considering we have been having the RISC vs x86 debate for the past 30 years at least, with the "consensus" being that small/simple is better than large/complex and will definitely win the battle... in the near future... I'm not going to get overly excited by this rerun :D
 
Why are you surprised? You shouldn't be.

@Mesai is adamant that you should buy one of these over an x86 laptop, because they are better in every way.
Where did I say that? I'm saying it's a positive option to have, and it'll take at least a year or 2 before it becomes reliable enough for the average user.

If you want an x86 device, then buy one, but if I have a MacBook for work because you can't get a Windows or Linux device with comparable performance without sacrificing battery and heat. If AMD or Intel magically improve x86 to a point where it can achieve something similar, I'll gladly buy one, but it's more likely to come from an ARM-based chip.

It's weird that you're freaking out about having another option.
 
Considering we have been having the RISC vs x86 debate for the past 30 years at least, with the "consensus" being that small/simple is better than large/complex and will definitely win the battle... in the near future... I'm not going to get overly excited by this rerun :D
I think the difference here is that ARM is already widely adopted, possibly more so than x86.
 
And this is the problem. People need to choose ARM over X86 in huge numbers and right now (outside of Apple) that requires making sacrifices.

I could pay £1500 for this ARM notebook and deal with headaches on Windows or £1500 for the latest AMD U APU and pretty much have an issue free life plus better performance on any flavour of OS I like. Windows/OS+ARM+(Insert manufacturer) have to beat that.
There is always a transitional processes with anything new. Apple went through it, its now Windows turn. I would suspect from the development side Apples transition will accelerate Windows'.

The business world want cooler, longer lasting laptops which X86 just can't replicate at the same performance, hence the huge push for it from Apple and now Microsoft. The mobile industry is going in that direction hard.

No doubt Intel and AMD will push out ARM chips too.
 
Last edited:
There is always a transitional processes with anything new. Apple went through it, its now Windows turn. I would suspect from the development side Apples transition will accelerate Windows'.

The business world want cooler, longer lasting laptops which X86 just can't replicate at the same performance, hence the huge push for it from Apple and now Microsoft. The mobile industry is going in that direction hard.

No doubt Intel and AMD will push out ARM chips too.

Well so far X86 is beating, at least this ARM implementation and any improvements in battery life must also come with performance and stability.
 
Where did I say that? I'm saying it's a positive option to have, and it'll take at least a year or 2 before it becomes reliable enough for the average user.

If you want an x86 device, then buy one, but if I have a MacBook for work because you can't get a Windows or Linux device with comparable performance without sacrificing battery and heat. If AMD or Intel magically improve x86 to a point where it can achieve something similar, I'll gladly buy one, but it's more likely to come from an ARM-based chip.

It's weird that you're freaking out about having another option.
If I had a £1 for every time someone in my industry said "If only I could put Windows on a Macbook Air"...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: R3X
Well so far X86 is beating, at least this ARM implementation and any improvements in battery life must also come with performance and stability.
Looking across reviews, X86 is not beating this ARM implementation on battery life and snappiness when comparing apples to apples on native software (Emulation hitting the battery 2x vs native). Individuals on a popular social site who had their units a couple of days ago are commenting how much snappier it is vs their top spec X86 laptop counterparts.

Stability comes with time on anything new, may it be software or hardware. You only need to look at AMD when they released Ryzen, that was riddled with instability issues even though X86 was mature and established.

With the industry pivoting hard to mobile ARM, its only going to get better and quickly. Which is a good thing for us, the end consumer. More competition will drive innovation and price wars.
 
Last edited:
Looking across reviews, X86 is not beating this ARM implementation on battery life and snappiness when comparing apples to apples on native software (Emulation hitting the battery 2x vs native). Individuals on a popular social site who had their units a couple of days ago are commenting how much snappier it is vs their top spec X86 laptop counterparts.

Stability comes with time on anything new, may it be software or hardware. You only need to look at AMD when they released Ryzen, that was riddled with instability issues even though X86 was mature and established.

With the industry pivoting hard to mobile ARM, its only going to get better and quickly. Which is a good thing for us, the end consumer. More competition will drive innovation and price wars.

Not sure if serious.
 
If I had a £1 for every time someone in my industry said "If only I could put Windows on a Macbook Air"...

If I had a pound for every time someone said I wish windows would crawl into a corner and die of genital aids, everyone would be millionaires.
 
Last edited:
The difference being if you were already in Apple's ecosystem, you had a choice either put up with it, or leave the ecosystem.
On Windows there's literally no reason to have to put up with it. Just carry on using an x86 laptop, native x86 apps and wait for this fad to all blow over. (Much like every other fad that MS has tried to force - Windows Phone, Windows 8, their first attempt at Surface ARM)

Yes, Microsoft should concentrate on their strengths instead of enviously looking over at Apple and try to copy anything they do, badly.

Microsoft's strengths are X86 compatibility, like i said before i never need to think about anything working on my Windows X86 OS, no matter what it is it just works, Apple is a walled garden, if its not approved by Apple it doesn't even install.
Some people like that, but Apple are not the market leaders, not by a very long way, Microsoft are,

Microsoft need to concentrate on improving their OS, Intel and AMD are keen to work with them to improve that OS but are largely ignored, its taken Intel and AMD years to get better thread scheduling in to Windows and even still its a half arsed broken crap job of it, AMD developed their own API as a competitor to DX11 to get them to update DirectX for modern GPU's as those GPU's were developing at pace with Microsoft's API already a decade out of date.

ARM can't do anything that X86 can't and X86 can do it all just as well, if Microsoft want to support specific fixed function extensions Intel and AMD could easily do that with X86, i'm sure both Intel and AMD have made such suggestions themselves.

Microsoft seem to have a missguided downer on X86 and their own OS, Intel developed X86 because they saw a gap in the market.
Developing for fixed function hardware was difficult and expensive, it also locked normies out of home computing, what Intel did, along with IBM was invent the Personal Computer, what Microsoft did was recognise the value in IBM's software, copied it and mass marketed it, none of it was possible without X86.

Those are the reasons Windows and X86 are dominant today, those were very different times when engineers wanted everyone to have unrestricted access to everything, these days walling everything off in to your own ecosystem is recognised as a much more profitable business model, X86 is in a front to that.
 
Last edited:
Edited the bad spelling in that ^^^ it needs to be said. few seem to understand what this is all about.

Considering we have been having the RISC vs x86 debate for the past 30 years at least, with the "consensus" being that small/simple is better than large/complex and will definitely win the battle... in the near future... I'm not going to get overly excited by this rerun :D

Exactly.
 
Last edited:
ARM can't do anything that X86 can't and X86 can do it all just as well, if Microsoft want to support specific fixed function extensions Intel and AMD could easily do that with X86, i'm sure both Intel and AMD have made such suggestions themselves.
So why, after all these years, hasn't MS made said improvements? We just got these ARM processors, running on a beta OS with beta drivers, and it's equalling/outperforming the latest offerings from AMD and Intel.

If MS could achieve what they wanted with x86, why don't they? They could just partner with AMD or Intel if there plan was to take on Apple. Would save them a ton of trouble in terms of compatibility.
 
So why, after all these years, hasn't MS made said improvements? We just got these ARM processors, running on a beta OS with beta drivers, and it's equalling/outperforming the latest offerings from AMD and Intel.

If MS could achieve what they wanted with x86, why don't they? They could just partner with AMD or Intel if there plan was to take on Apple. Would save them a ton of trouble in terms of compatibility.

Where is it outperforming AMD/Intel?

X86 applications can be made by anyone, downloaded and install from anywhere, for years Microsoft have tried to turn the Windows Store in to an app store where Microsoft can charge for the privilege.
It hasn't worked because; why would you?

If however you have hardware that needs specific software compatibility then Microsoft can wall it off through their app store.

Microsoft don't like X86 because they can't control it, they can't gate keep it.
 
Last edited:
So why, after all these years, hasn't MS made said improvements? We just got these ARM processors, running on a beta OS with beta drivers, and it's equalling/outperforming the latest offerings from AMD and Intel.

If MS could achieve what they wanted with x86, why don't they? They could just partner with AMD or Intel if there plan was to take on Apple. Would save them a ton of trouble in terms of compatibility.

ARM is not equivalent to X86 in this case. Can we at least face reality please.

Windows greatest strength is also its biggest weakness. Windows offers a broad compatibility. The downside is to have this broad range of compatibility, you have to compromise, hack fixes and workarounds together. In the case of Windows it’s lasagne of fail has been built up and added to over decades. The challenge for MS would be peeling back all those layers and start exposing more of the hardware capabilities to the user and that would get rather topical very quickly.
 
Apple can tell developers exactly how to code for their new platform to use the dedicated accelerators that apples chips include. Good luck telling every windows or Linux developer out there that they need to code a certain way just to benefit a tiny market share.

"Efficiency" isn't what is holding x86 back, and modern x86 and arm chips barely look any different in terms of design. Intel or AMD could bung a load of fixed function accelerators onto an x86 chip the same way Apple have, but without software support you end up underwhelming outside of a carefully handpicked selection of benchmarks.
The huge amount of fixed functions Apple include in their chips often missed or forgotten, but it is very important. Besides, long-term Apple developers should know this: whatever direction Apple moves to, you had better jump (68K > PPC > x86 > ARM with some other diversions like DSP accelerators (well Photoshop plug devs only), changing to 'nix for Mac OS X onwards etc.).
You keep saying this, but it's irrelevant. Just because an app has an ARM build doesn't make it any easier to make a Windows ARM build.
Arguably with modern build tools it's normally as simple as ticking a box for your build target, and out pops an ARM app at the end of it. It's largely the testing and optimisation processes that take the time and money.
About the only time it would be relevant would be if a build setting had to changed from big/little edian, and/or they have SIMD code.

But surely, SIMD units for Apple Silicon and standard ARM and Qualcomm's new Oryon are not the same - and even where they are might require different compiler flags (no idea how clever modern compilers are at SIMD stuff).
 
Where is it outperforming AMD/Intel?
Plenty benchmarks show them trading blows, and this is on beta software. Also, when you consider performance per watt, it's a relatively easy win in most areas. About the only place it doesn't matter is for general desktop use where you're always plugged into the wall.
ARM is not equivalent to X86 in this case. Can we at least face reality please.

Windows greatest strength is also its biggest weakness. Windows offers a broad compatibility. The downside is to have this broad range of compatibility, you have to compromise, hack fixes and workarounds together. In the case of Windows it’s lasagne of fail has been built up and added to over decades. The challenge for MS would be peeling back all those layers and start exposing more of the hardware capabilities to the user and that would get rather topical very quickly.
Agreed, and I don't expect x86 to die off for exactly this reason. There's a large market that Microsoft can eat into and this enables that move.

Again, I'm not advocating for either side. I'll gladly use Zen 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 200 in my desktop as long as the support is there, but I can never go back to an x86 laptop unless they can compete with the equivalent ARM offerings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: R3X
Back
Top Bottom