That long? That'd be disappointing and would disqualify those devices for me, I just can't stand WindowsThe expectation is that it could take a year or so to get proper support for 8cx laptops from Linux. Rumour has it that they're "locked" to Windows (how that works, I don't know), but I don't see that as a major issue. The big problem is that 8cx simply doesn't have kernel support yet. The Adreno iGPU does, apparently, but everything else . . . ? We'll see.
That long? That'd be disappointing and would disqualify those devices for me, I just can't stand Windows
Not necessarily.Honestly, if you are looking for A76 supported by Linux, I would look for upcoming Rockchip products. One of those will find their way into a Pine64 product. Eventually 8cx may be supported - there's a lot of work being done to run Linux on the Win10 Snapdragon 835 and 850 laptops as we speak. I just wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it. Qualcomm probably isn't cooperating, and Intel sure isn't.
@soresu
Freedreno already supports the Adreno 680 in the 8cx (I think). The question is whether or not the rest of the system will be bootable using existing ARM linux kernels. Plus we don't know what kind of bizarre secure boot-ish restrictions exist in these systems to prevent non-Windows operation.
One would think Google with their Chromebooks would be interested in 8cx. After all their insistence of hardware being supported in mainline kernel is what ensured the Adreno iGPU support is included in Linux.
On the previous generation of devices from Asus, Lenovo and HP (e.g. Snapdragon 835) you could just disable secure boot and boot from USB/file. In addition you could make your Windows partition smaller and install Linux on its own partition in parallel.
PRICE, 8CX is a premium CPU. So they can only use it on super-premium stuff. There already Chromebooks with ARM cpus, like the S330.
There was talk that Qualcomm would abandon the customised IP model (It's doubtful it ever made any difference).These results are strange: the CPU ID is from ARM not from Qualcomm. That'd be a change from previous generations.
So, in your opinion, do you think the 8cx machines will be able to boot the same distros that were bootable on the 835 and 850?
PRICE, 8CX is a premium CPU. So they can only use it on super-premium stuff. There already Chromebooks with ARM cpus, like the S330.
I was just implying that booting something is the least problem. But the deltas, certain device drivers aside, should be small compared to the current distros.
Actually, the lack of a standard BIOS/EFI for pretty much any ARM system is kind of a hurdle for booting. I think?
Wasn't Windows phone used UEFI boot? And the previous generation hardware used UEFI also I believe.
That applies to many SBCs but the devices we are talking about have pretty much standard ACPI compliant UEFI etc.
The S330 uses an ancient MT8173 SoC with only 2x A72 big cores vs 4x A76 big cores in SD 855/8cx, even the clockspeed is significantly higher (on peak core) due to 7nm process use vs 28nm for MT8173.
Max speed difference could be more than 2x the MT8173 at peak.
Even with a RK3588 which will likely be clocked closer to MT8173, there is still a good 50-60% lead in IPC due to A76, not to mention the A55 vs A53 IPC improvement at low power range.
But again, PRICE is the problem, they cant sell 8CX Chromebooks at the price of that S330, ARM problem right now is not matching X86 perf, they already can, they need to do that at a lower price, premium only will not get ARM anywhere. They also need MS to solve the x64 binary emulation ASAP.
Thing is they already matching x86 performance at much lower power.
Do we have an actual mm2 number for SD 855?But again, PRICE is the problem, they cant sell 8CX Chromebooks at the price of that S330, ARM problem right now is not matching X86 perf, they already can, they need to do that at a lower price, premium only will not get ARM anywhere. They also need MS to solve the x64 binary emulation ASAP.
Thats an out dated viewpoint of Chrome OS, you can do Android apps on most and plain linux apps on several at this point.Any why x64 emulation? If you need 64 bit apps, chance is that you also need native performance. Besides Chromebooks are mostly about web-apps.
And how does ARM compiled bare metal Linux does against regular x86 or x64 Linux fare in performance? Any benchmark link?Thats an out dated viewpoint of Chrome OS, you can do Android apps on most and plain linux apps on several at this point.
My point wasn't about performance so much as app compatibility.And how does ARM compiled bare metal Linux does against regular x86 or x64 Linux fare in performance? Any benchmark link?
Chromebooks is one thing, but if ARM wants to get anywhere they need to take the main laptop segment, ARM can only do that in Windows, with Windows software that runs on x86 and x64. This is why they need higher perf (on emulator) and lower costs, otherwise they will always be a niche. And im not even starting to consider desktops.