Few posts I read are saying that the i7 based surface pro is only 1.7x faster than A9X. Wondering if it's true, in sense that i expect it to be a lot faster and not just 1.7x. I am not sure which model is 1.7x times faster.
Not a surprise if true, high end ARM chips are much faster than they were a few years ago and have surpassed low end X86 chips because AMD was struggling and Intel has been stagnant.
Intel backed out of mobile because Atom couldn't compete.
Few posts I read are saying that the i7 based surface pro is only 1.7x faster than A9X. Wondering if it's true, in sense that i expect it to be a lot faster and not just 1.7x. I am not sure which model is 1.7x times faster.
Few posts I read are saying that the i7 based surface pro is only 1.7x faster than A9X. Wondering if it's true, in sense that i expect it to be a lot faster and not just 1.7x. I am not sure which model is 1.7x times faster.
Yes exactly, i wonder why Panos said it on stage. On what basis did this come up??????. It's just that once he said people started comparing more
Few posts I read are saying that the i7 based surface pro is only 1.7x faster than A9X. Wondering if it's true, in sense that i expect it to be a lot faster and not just 1.7x. I am not sure which model is 1.7x times faster.
Few posts I read are saying that the i7 based surface pro is only 1.7x faster than A9X. Wondering if it's true, in sense that i expect it to be a lot faster and not just 1.7x. I am not sure which model is 1.7x times faster.
For equivalent graphics intensive processes on a system bogged down with multiple apps/programs running in the background, I really can't see the A9X holding a candle to a 7th generation Core i7.