3 ms·
We don't know yet. Overhead could be something like 5% or 25%. We'll see when the reviews come. For what it's worth, it seems to run x86 apps just fine in Micro
by mtgx 9y ago
We don't know yet. Overhead could be something like 5% or 25%. We'll see when the reviews come. For what it's worth, it seems to run x86 apps just fine in Microsoft's own demo (keep in mind it's still a mobile ARM processor, so performance will be similar to Atom/Celeron/Pentium, rather than Core i5, etc).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_GlGglbu1U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_GlGglbu1U
- disconnected 9y agoI don't trust product demos, movie trailers nor press releases, so I'll reserve my enthusiasm until someone on the "real world" has had the chance to get their hands on this. What I know is this: ARM emulation via QEMU on my core i7 was pretty slow last I tried it. Not unusably slow, but still slow. And I have tons of ram and a fat CPU. These laptops, especially if they are made on the cheap side, won't have tons of RAM and a fat CPU. Unless Microsoft pulled some magic tricks, I don't see this emulation being usable. But I could be wrong.
- my123 9y agohttps://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=37172&start=25 https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=37172... ARM64 emulation in Qemu is very slow anyway...
- pm215 9y ago"faster than QEMU" isn't a particularly high bar to clear, though. In particular if you're only emulating a single process rather than a full guest OS then you can reduce the overhead quite a bit. Plus if you design something from the start for the single-process emulation case, and only need to worry about one guest and one host architecture, and focus on emulation performance as a key goal, you can likely do better than QEMU without too much trouble.