3 ms·

Maybe I am missing the point, but why wouldn't you rather buy a NUC instead of this slow box? I get it MS wants to be like Apple, meticulously copying anything

by bitL 4y ago

Maybe I am missing the point, but why wouldn't you rather buy a NUC instead of this slow box? I get it MS wants to be like Apple, meticulously copying anything that pops up there, but their brand is associated with different "experiences" and their main value lies in backwards compatibility and open hardware ecosystem.

ykl 4y ago
The point of this is that it's an Windows-on-ARM devkit; you can't buy a ARM NUC that'll run Windows AFAIK (Intel doesn't make ARM machines), and you can't test ARM software natively on an x86-64 NUC.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
crooked-v 4y ago
Because Intel performance per watt sucks compared to the competition, mostly.
kcb 4y ago
I doubt this is going to feel slow in actual use. You've got 8 big arm cores with a lot of memory, fast storage, and active cooling.
- jyrkesh 4y ago
  Having worked with Windows on ARM in the past, I _hope_ you're right. But my experience has been that a ton of code is still going through the x86 emulation layer, which IMO is woefully lacking in performance, particularly compared to Apple's Rosetta 2 (which is a magical marvel of engineering).
  - MikusR 4y ago
    Rosetta feels fast because apple m cpus are about twice as fast as qualcom ones
- nebula8804 4y ago
  I learned this lesson the hard way during the AMD Phenom era. Core count are not a good representation of performance because the 8 "big" cores could be blazing fast or be secretly powered by a hamster on a wheel. What is the actual benchmark performance on real applications you might use? Thats what matters at the end of the day.
  - seanp2k2 4y ago
    There are already other machines with 8cx Gen3 CPUs on Geekbench if you want to compare: https://browser.geekbench.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=8cx+gen+3 https://browser.geekbench.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=8cx+ge... it's like a third slower than an M1 Max in single-core.
znpy 4y ago
Because nucs are not arm-based.
dblooman 4y ago
meticulously? What is it that Microsoft has really copied in the last five years?
- bitL 4y ago
  Like the UI changes in Windows 11? Surface hardware? Windows Store?

by bitL 4y ago

ykl 4y ago

The point of this is that it's an Windows-on-ARM devkit; you can't buy a ARM NUC that'll run Windows AFAIK (Intel doesn't make ARM machines), and you can't test ARM software natively on an x86-64 NUC.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

crooked-v 4y ago

Because Intel performance per watt sucks compared to the competition, mostly.

kcb 4y ago

I doubt this is going to feel slow in actual use. You've got 8 big arm cores with a lot of memory, fast storage, and active cooling.

jyrkesh 4y ago
Having worked with Windows on ARM in the past, I _hope_ you're right. But my experience has been that a ton of code is still going through the x86 emulation layer, which IMO is woefully lacking in performance, particularly compared to Apple's Rosetta 2 (which is a magical marvel of engineering).
- MikusR 4y ago
  Rosetta feels fast because apple m cpus are about twice as fast as qualcom ones
nebula8804 4y ago
I learned this lesson the hard way during the AMD Phenom era. Core count are not a good representation of performance because the 8 "big" cores could be blazing fast or be secretly powered by a hamster on a wheel. What is the actual benchmark performance on real applications you might use? Thats what matters at the end of the day.
- seanp2k2 4y ago
  There are already other machines with 8cx Gen3 CPUs on Geekbench if you want to compare: https://browser.geekbench.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=8cx+gen+3 https://browser.geekbench.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=8cx+ge... it's like a third slower than an M1 Max in single-core.

znpy 4y ago

Because nucs are not arm-based.

dblooman 4y ago

meticulously? What is it that Microsoft has really copied in the last five years?

bitL 4y ago
Like the UI changes in Windows 11? Surface hardware? Windows Store?