[vishal mehta1]

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.

[L0n3N1nja]

App lag caused double post.

[L0n3N1nja]

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.

[Drael646464]

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.

Partly because of the licensing system QUALCOMM uses to charge, which apple is taking them to court over, that makes their chip more expensive on expensive devices, and cheaper on cheaper devices.
Qualcomm have been able to get crème money from apple, whilst undercutting intel in cheaper devices.

If apple wins, they'll lose the right to charge that way. Which will make the chips, by default more expensive.

Intel is also using its nm process to make some ARM chips for mobile devices.

Of course you are right, with quad chips chasing 2+ ghz now, ARM chips have caught up to lower end x86 - of course they don't have the option of dedicated graphics or extended peripherals like mSATA, thunderbolt 3.

This for example leads to at least half the disk speed in even the highest tier ipad pro, and a lack of ability to use an egpu. And with moore's law broken, its unlikely to improve on its current peak very fast. Whereas gpu is still accelerating at its regular pace, being massively parallel. Given that it seems like the main surge from here, will be graphics, on the intel side. Which is significant in the nascent emerging age of VR/AR.

Generally however I am impressed how had ARM has come. It's gotten to a point where a phone is a passable potential PC, if you don't push it hard.

[Drael646464]

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.

IDK which model, and it seems like a meaningless number. I mean maybe one does 1.7 times the gflops or something, but an ipad is a large smartphone.

It can't run adobe premiere pro, or quantum break. Performance on such a device is largely a waste of time. Performance on a PC really matters.

[worldspy99]

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.

This random speed calculation comparison is not appropriate.
The iPad cannot run Solidworks or other computing hungry programs professionals use.

[vishal mehta1]

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

[convergent]

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

Some of the things Panos said seemed very carefully worded. Like when he talked about this he transitioned into the fanless design ... so he went from i5 to i7 in the same stream of thought. When he got to the trackpad, it said it was inspired by the Studio and that it was the best trackpad ever shipped on Pro. So does that mean the Surface Laptop has a better or worse trackpad. He had just talked about the new keyboard design coming from the Surface Laptop, then mentioned the Studio when talking about the trackpad. Careful wording always makes me a little suspicious.

The speed comparison to the Surface Pro and iPad is kind of ridiculous since they can't run any of the same software. It would be like comparing the raw processor speed of Xbox to Wii. It means nothing since the platform and apps are completely different.

[sinime]

I'm not sure of the context of the 1.7x claim, but maybe it's just a "more bang for your buck" statement? Where the i7 Surface is 1.7x faster that the same priced (or more expensive) iPad pro.

[Zachary Boddy]

I don't think it matters at all. The Core i7 in the Pro (with those Iris Pro graphics) is going to blow the iPad Pro away with anything that people actually need that kind of power for.

[convergent]

Its kind of a crazy comparison anyway... like comparing a riding lawn mower to a push lawn mower. They do different stuff.

[L0n3N1nja]

Windows 10 will run on the Sanpdragon 835 later this year, it will be interesting to see how it performs on the same platform.

[onlysublime]

who made up this 1.7X? where did this start?

[vishal mehta1]

Panos did when he was introducing Surface Pro 2017

[Stiv X]

This comparison if anything just gave legitimacy to the claim the iPad is a competitor to the Surface. It should never have been said. The iPad is a toy. The Surface is a real computer.

[sdreamer]

Next year the Snapdragon will be 1.89x faster than the Core i9.... /sarcasm I find it really hard to figure out what "speed" is now in computing. The ARM architecture vs the x86 architecture vary wildly. If you do a single instruction type of deal, I'm sure Intel on Clock speed alone would win, but it wouldn't win by much these days. I'm sure the Apple x10 has many advantages over the Intel chips as well, as being much more efficient. However, when it comes down to raw instructions and processes, I still think Intel would win that because the ARM architecture seems to be focused more on efficiency and not speed.

[MrElectrifyer]

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.

The i3 Surface Pro 3 was already performing better than it in benchmarks ( http://sck.pm/xwl ). Was kinda surprised that they indirectly stated it's not...maybe they're measuring something else.

[SvenJ]

It is an interesting comparison/statement to make, and I'm sure MS can produce some documentation/data that supports it.
I'm not sure what that even means in real life though. If the Surface and iPad ran the same apps, and the Surface rendered a video production 1.7 times faster than the iPad, that would be useful, though I would expect it to do better than that actually. That sort of processor intense stuff isn't even what the iPad is intended for, so is almost unfair to expect it to keep up with an i7.
If they ran some academic complex sort algorithm or something that the Surface does faster, does that really matter? If the Surface recalculates a massive Excel spreadsheet faster than the iPad, would anyone be surprised?
Not sure you could compare the two on standard benchmark software as they are widely different architectures, processors, everything.
We do like statistics, though, so having some to throw out is required of marketing.

[Easy-G]

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.

"faster" being the operative word. It would be nice to know what processes he was using as a benchmark, but it's probably true. For most people in comparable cross-platform tasks (web browsing, document opening/editing) the difference in speed is probably negligible in terms of loading/rendering time, and may work out to around a 1.7x difference... which in real time might be a tenth of second...

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.

[convergent]

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.

Nor is the software available on iOS to even allow the candle to be lit on that platform.

[rbgaynor]

"Partly because of the licensing system QUALCOMM uses to charge, which apple is taking them to court over, that makes their chip more expensive on expensive devices, and cheaper on cheaper devices. Qualcomm have been able to get crème money from apple, whilst undercutting intel in cheaper devices. "

You're confusing Qualcomm's modem (radio) business with their ARM processor business. Apple and Qualcomm are arguing over royalties for the modem chips, Apple has nothing to do with Qualcomm's Arm processors (Snapdragon) as they have their own superior in-house ARM processor designs.

[wynand32]

If we're comparing the iPad Pro to a Surface Pro, then that implies its own limitations. That is, we can only compare tasks that can be done on both devices. So, we're not talking about running Adobe Premier or doing 3D renders in AutoCAD, because those can't be done on an iPad Pro, period. We must be talking about the same kinds of casual productivity apps (the vastly more limited Office Mobile, for example, as opposed to the full Office 2016 suite), watching video, playing casual games, and the like.

That "Surface Pro is 1.7X as fast as the iPad Pro" bit is aimed at people who will be choosing between those two devices. To many of those people, it means, which device is faster at running Candy Crush Saga, browsing the web, or checking email.

And I'd wager that Intel will be doing some of their own comparisons once we see Windows 10 machines running on the Snapdragon 835, because there's no way ARM will run Win32 apps even close to as fast as Intel Core processors will. Even if the Snapdragon 835 was as fast in general at running complex apps as an Intel Core processor (which I don't think it is), that emulation layer is definitely going to get in the way.

[Cruncher04]

because there's no way ARM will run Win32 apps even close to as fast as Intel Core processors will. Even if the Snapdragon 835 was as fast in general at running complex apps as an Intel Core processor (which I don't think it is), that emulation layer is definitely going to get in the way.

Of course emulated apps vs. non emulated would not be a fair comparison at all. However Win32 Apps are not inherently x86...they can be compiled for ARM. So the idea that Win32 apps need to be emulated is flawed. Only x86 Win32 apps need to be emulated...ARM Win32 apps do not.

[convergent]

Of course emulated apps vs. non emulated would not be a fair comparison at all. However Win32 Apps are not inherently x86...they can be compiled for ARM. So the idea that Win32 apps need to be emulated is flawed. Only x86 Win32 apps need to be emulated...ARM Win32 apps do not.

Do you think that developers are going to want to recompile for ARM? I see that being a problem if they need to have different versions of their apps for a different processor... will become fragmented and inconsistent.

[wynand32]

Of course emulated apps vs. non emulated would not be a fair comparison at all. However Win32 Apps are not inherently x86...they can be compiled for ARM. So the idea that Win32 apps need to be emulated is flawed. Only x86 Win32 apps need to be emulated...ARM Win32 apps do not.

Yes, of course, when I said "Win32" I was referring to the 16 million or so Windows desktop apps out there that the Windows 10 on ARM emulation layer is intended to support. The lack of support for these apps -- which I'm guessing developers won't be so quick to recompile for ARM, any quicker than they've been to make UWP versions -- is what killed Windows RT (among other things).

And, I would submit that even if Autodesk recompiled AutoCAD for ARM, it wouldn't perform as well on a Snapdragon 835 as it does a Core i7.