3 ms·
You can't compare the performance of an SoC with a flexible architecture in which any part can be changed, upgraded, etc. It's impressive, of course - no doubt,
by nikolay 6y ago
You can't compare the performance of an SoC with a flexible architecture in which any part can be changed, upgraded, etc. It's impressive, of course - no doubt, but this is not apples-to-apples comparison. The performance is due to huge compromises. It will be costly to repair, too, given EU is mandating the right to repair now. Anyway, competition is great and Intel and AMD are already taking notes.
- thefz 6y agoThat's what I think too and I get downvoted all the time for saying that a system on a chip freshly designed from the ground up with mobile use as a goal, with tightly integrated everything and ad-hoc software written on top of course runs great.
- solarkraft 6y agoNow I have to wonder why no other vendor (who are all moving in the direction of SoC, including Intel and AMD AFAIK) thought of that.
- girvo 6y agoQualcomm did, but their performance in the surface products from Microsoft is nowhere near this performance.
- medecau 6y agorepair process will probably be: "here's a new, have a nice day"
- Const-me 6y agoAgree. With traditional PCs, just length of these DDR4 wires in the motherboard adds like 4-7 CPU cycles of main memory latency.
- xbar 6y agoOf course you can. In fact, the user included a not- particularly upgradable or reparable Intel Macbook in the comparison. Compile times and upgradeability/reparability are not mutually exclusive. It is not wrong to highlight the tradeoff. But people are allowed to decide "I want to give up reparability for nearly 5x faster compiles." Which is what the person got when comparing to the prior generation Macbook with the same compiler.