https://www.semiaccurate.com/2024/0...g-on-their-snapdragon-x-elite-pro-benchmarks/
New Qualcomm silicon for new Surface May 2024
- Thread starter wco81
- Start date
Asus will reveal a long-awaited "AI PC" on May 20 with a Snapdragon X Elite chip
Laptop maker Asus revealed this week that it would debut an AI PC during a live-streamed event on May 20, 2024 called "Next Level. AI Incredible."
Qualcomm’s Snapdragon X chips in Dell XPS 13 Plus laptops will nearly double battery life over Intel, cost half as much
Arm means better battery life for you, cheaper CPU costs for Dell
Multiple Arm vendors are making chips for desktop PCs — Arm exec says Qualcomm Snapdragon won't be the only game in town
Arm expects to enter the Windows market on multiple fronts.
cheapchips
Veteran
There were reports yesterday that Nvidia and Mediatek are working on a chip to compete with Snapdragon X. Guess they already have a motor chip partnership but thought it was a bit odd that Nvidia wasn't just going it alone.
Leaked Dell memo may spell trouble for Intel in competition with Qualcomm
Internal Dell documents show up to 98 percent battery life increase on the XPS laptop when Qualcomm's Snapdragon X is running instead Intel Alder Lake Intel chips.
No WiFi 720p video playback is an unuseful benchmark which is sadly common, it's where Mx laptops get their most extreme battery life lead too.
From a design standpoint it's interesting that the system can't reduce power that far, from a practical one WiFi browsing should be the standard for battery life testing.
I don't want laptops/SoCs to be designed for video. If I can have expandable RAM/SSD and cheaper CPUs through chiplets for say a couple percent of battery life during WiFi browsing that's to me a good deal.
From a design standpoint it's interesting that the system can't reduce power that far, from a practical one WiFi browsing should be the standard for battery life testing.
I don't want laptops/SoCs to be designed for video. If I can have expandable RAM/SSD and cheaper CPUs through chiplets for say a couple percent of battery life during WiFi browsing that's to me a good deal.
Last edited:
I don't know how much AVX is actually used in games.
But I'm more concerned with DX driver support. We've seen just how hard it is with ARC.
The biggest difference here is that MS is one of, if not the biggest games publishers, and they have an inherent reason for arm to be successful compared to arc.
So I would hope they make native office apps, and native ports for all their currently supported games day one the devices launch.
Probably can only put in the store, don't know if steam supports multi-arch.
Minecraft, COD, FlightSim, SOT, Forzas, Bethesda stuff. Would be good for store but hige for the devices.
But I'm more concerned with DX driver support. We've seen just how hard it is with ARC.
The biggest difference here is that MS is one of, if not the biggest games publishers, and they have an inherent reason for arm to be successful compared to arc.
So I would hope they make native office apps, and native ports for all their currently supported games day one the devices launch.
Probably can only put in the store, don't know if steam supports multi-arch.
Minecraft, COD, FlightSim, SOT, Forzas, Bethesda stuff. Would be good for store but hige for the devices.
A lot of recent AAA games like Starfield, Helldivers 2, Horizon Forbidden West, or Ghost of Tsushima unconditionally requires AVX support by default ...
As for drivers, Intel would be an apt example as to what to expect from QCOM since they both share fickle shader compilers and no developers and I mean *absolutely no developers* will even attempt to test their applications against their driver implementations. For game developers, if it works on the AMD/NV driver implementation then they'll simply proceed to ship their product even if it is subtly broken on other hardware vendors ...
Current Windows on ARM devices will not succeed at being able to run a good chunk of AAA games released in the last couple years or let alone any games with anti-cheat kernel drivers ...
I think MS needs to at least do their part by providing native versions.
Which means doing the work.
Then at least the devices will have a good selection of native software. (all things considered)
Ampere announces 256-core 3nm CPU, unveils partnership with Qualcomm
Also looking at chiplets, integration of third-party IP.
That still leaves out every other game developer/publisher independent of Microsoft. Sony games are just one of the biggest offenders with the AVX requirement. Ubisoft, Sega, Capcom, and Square are others that have been compiling their games with AVX too. Some DRM tools also use AVX even if the game itself doesn't!
I think it's good that AVX is being used, fact it may cause issues when being emulated is just life and will either need to be worked around or just not work well.
But natively compiled versions doesn't have to use AVX. Don't know what the state of neon is, expect it to have been superseded by now but could make use of that.
Don't think PS5 has full AVX? So shows games doesn't have to be dependent on it.
I always find that MS puts things out, and tools and say there you go, but are bad at supporting it itself IMO.
But natively compiled versions doesn't have to use AVX. Don't know what the state of neon is, expect it to have been superseded by now but could make use of that.
Don't think PS5 has full AVX? So shows games doesn't have to be dependent on it.
I always find that MS puts things out, and tools and say there you go, but are bad at supporting it itself IMO.
The main problem with AVX emulation is the wider register width (256-bit) and even if the Neon extension features a similar register file size (due to having 2x# regs) there are many cases where you can't do static register allocation to keep the same amount of registers between the the host (ARM) and target (x86) architecture due to the mismatched vector sizes. There are games that don't work on Intel GPUs for this very same reason since some games rely on on having their shaders specifically compiled into either wave64/32 sizes. The former is impossible to emulate without significant slowdowns and while Intel GPUs do have a SIMD32 mode, they can't promise you that their shader compiler won't pick SIMD8/SIMD16 either ...
Even if PS5 features a half rate AVX implementation, using AVX can still be a win over there because of higher instruction cache hit rates and fewer instructions to fetch/decode ...
Microsoft is not at fault. AMD and Intel's x86 implementations are the *industry standard* for PC/console gaming so everyone has to play by their rules if they want to compete against them on their own playing field that is Windows even on a different architecture ...
