Most apps total? Sure. Most apps by number of installs? I'm not so confident. The Win/ARM software ecosystem has improved quite a bit.
You are guys are forgetting that most apps on WoA will run via emulation.
Thus, it is essential that Qualcomm should have a ST performance advantage over it's x86 rivals.
Cheap KRK 243 for us poor folks too, right😃?Didn't win lotta laptops just_because.
Agree. The X Plus is slower than a base M2 in ST. ST is very important, it’s what makes the feel responsive.Probably for some even lower end SKUs.
The total lack of ST boost is surely the most disappointing news on this, still relatively high-end SKU.
It's a drop from 4.2 to 3.4 GHz, which makes it slower in CB2024 ST than the original entry-level M1 (soon to be 4 year old).
The MT score is actually still quite decent (despite a noticeable drop from X Elite). It's still faster than the M2 Pro and about the same that a desktop Ryzen 5800X or i5 14400.
Lower clockspeed alongside deactivated alus most likely.I wonder how the 4.6 TFLOPS GPU got downgraded to a 3.8 TFLOPS one. Did they disable a bunch of ALUs, or did they reduce the clock speed?
Qualcomm is incredibly tight lipped about their Adreno GPUs. Since the Snapdragon 888, they don't even mention the GPU model names (such as Adreno 730, 740, 750...) publicly.
The issue is though, that to get the Elite and all it's awesomeness, people will most likely have to pay extra, in laptops.Plus = Minus
Elite still looks OK, however.
yessir.Cheap KRK 243 for us poor folks too, right😃?
the third excks elite is not like the two others. has no boost.The issue is though, that to get the Elite and all it's awesomeness, people will most likely have to pay extra, in laptops.
Isn't this the expected? X Elite is meant to slot in premium devices. These won't come cheap.The issue is though, that to get the Elite and all it's awesomeness, people will most likely have to pay extra, in laptops.
X Elite = Core i7
X Plus = Core i5
In most laptops, you have to pay an uncharge, to upgrade from i5 to i7.
Music to my ears. I already have an decent PC. So I only need a cheap, powerful and with great battery life laptop. KRK is even better because it has updated GFX and Media Engine IP.yessir.
It's not just X Plus, also one of the X Elite SKUs gets it's boost clock removed, which is mega annoying. I really wish there was a different name for that SKU, maybe it should have been the "X Pro" instead. Because losing nearly 20% ST clocks vs the top end X Elite is easily a whole generation's worth of ST improvement. That's a vastly different experience it's providing compared to the other two Elite SKUs.Agree. The X Plus is slower than a base M2 in ST. ST is very important, it’s what makes the feel responsive.
well no media engine is the same, only navi44/48 get the new VCN.KRK is even better because it has updated GFX and Media Engine IP.
So they can sell more chips that failed in binning to make the cut as the real X Elite. Typical user won't be able to tell the difference without running GB6 and their partners can join in on the deceptive fun of false advertising.Why Qualcomm had to pull this stunt with the last one is beyond me.
Oh! Well, doesn't matter. PP/HWK VCN is still eons ahead of what my laptop currently has. So it's still a multi-generational upgrade.well no media engine is the same, only navi44/48 get the new VCN.
Why aren't you getting a Snapdragon X laptop? This is high-treason. /sMusic to my ears. I already have an decent PC. So I only need a cheap, powerful and with great battery life laptop. KRK is even better because it has updated GFX and Media Engine IP.
It makes sense if even 33% chips on a wafer are unable to hit high clocks. Why rebadge them as slower chips and make less profit? TSMC must be charging them a lot for them to be doing this.That makes zero sense.
it's a very-very-very clear evidence they had to push the clocks wayyyyy up to get competitive 1t.It makes sense if even 33% chips on a wafer are unable to hit high clocks. Why rebadge them as slower chips and make less profit? TSMC must be charging them a lot for them to be doing this.
Then they should cut down the two cores and sell it as X Plus. Duh.It makes sense if even 33% chips on a wafer are unable to hit high clocks. Why rebadge them as slower chips and make less profit?.
@SpudLobbyit's a very-very-very clear evidence they had to push the clocks wayyyyy up to get competitive 1t.
(and still failed since the retail si is now one bin down versus what they shilled not even half a year ago)
Why do that when they can make more money selling it as an X Elite SKU? Remember, QC has no idea if WoA will be a big hit. If it fails to catch on with the public, QC wants to walk away with as much money as possible.Then they should cut down the two cores and sell it as X Plus. Duh.
I don't believe that's what they are thinking. If it is so, it's incredibly shortsighted on their part.Why do that when they can make more money selling it as an X Elite SKU? Remember, QC has no idea if WoA will be a big hit. If it fails to catch on with the public, QC wants to walk away with as much money as possible.
Which also explains this silver X, in the teaser they posted a few days ago:Qualcomm is going hard on the segmentation, huh?
View attachment 97658
X Plus gets an inferior silver logo.
They do not have a choice.And this is why I have been saying all along that X Elite G2 and it's Pegasus core should not increase the clock speed
ugh kiddo Pegasus is not that fast.