$999 for a Netbook? Snapdragon-Powered PCs are a Rip-Off

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
NOBODY should be selling a Windows 10 PC of ANY sort with only 4GB of memory in this day and age.

I'm very disappointed in Qualcomm or the OEM/VAR's...whichever was responsible for this decision. If you KNOW you already don't have any wiggle room performance wise then WHY would you make this particular mistake.

Unconscionable and unforgivable error, even for an Intel or AMD based laptop.
 
Yes some laptops Are rippoff... better compare these with Intel atom Powered 14” 4K screen laptops that have 4G modem... then there would be Computer that really would be somewhat same as these... there just Are not so high end atom computers that would compete with these. Instead we have Intel i5 or i7 based ultrabooks that cost 1700-2500$... hmm... not comparable with those neither.
Snapdragon based ultrabooks Are very spesific things to very spesific task. Not for normal Mr Jones.
 
I still don't understand why x86 laptops with LTE modems are so expensive. LTE modem chips cost around $10, but even the lowest-end x86 laptops with them cost over $800, and the vast majority are well over $2000.
 
I read stuff like this and I feel Tom's Hardware should stick to hardware testing. These are not "netbooks". They can run full windows 10 pro, they can join domains, remote access, and through emulation can support MOST desktop apps that business users need, on top of that, it is an always connected device. There's a distinction between that and an intel device with LTE. Even in hibernate or standy, short of you turning it OFF it still receives your messages, emails, notifications. This is ESSENTIAL in the business world, and the main reason why people are more reliant in smart phones, because that information is there instantly, no boot up. I can have Teams, Outlook, messaging and SMS texts going on, while my laptop is closed and I'm moving somewhere and open it to take a glance. Now for the 999 price point. Where's the Tom's Hardware piece lambasting Apple.. or Samsung.. about how expensive their flagship phones are. You can pay 200 dollars for phones that do the same thing right? So why the fake outrage over this? These are premium devices that do many if not all the things smartphone can... but are also computers.. so in that regard, 999 is a great deal
 
I can see the benefit of these to people who need to constantly monitor information for work because of the battery life. I think they are testing the waters to see what people are willing to pay. High end phones with the snapdragon 845 are expensive too and they don't have windows. But yeah, way more than I would pay for the performance.
 
I agree with the premise of the article. They are overpriced, and they need more RAM. However...

One major performance challenge is that Snapdragon chips have to run standard win32 apps like Chrome in x86 emulation mode.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Win32 apps (both Store apps and outside programs) can be compiled for ARM, so they run natively. There's a strong rumor that the Windows version of Chrome will be gaining an ARM compile due to Qualcomm's urging.

Edge, Microsoft’s own browser, ran better than Chrome, but it still had plenty of lag when switching tabs.
Click to expand...
That's probably due to the lack of RAM more than any other factor.

Snapdragon chips can only run 32-bit win32 apps
Click to expand...
Current SD chips. That's one of the things that needs to be corrected going forward, hopefully with the 1000 series.
 
If Qualcomm really wants to to be competitive then they too go x64 route. There is a reason why Intel and amd shifted to x64.
 
And this is what bugs me, x64 emulation is supported on several apps. If TH bothered to test it, they'd know this. Btw, where are these boundless supplies of x64 apps that people are worried about? As far the app issue it runs on arm... So how easy would it be port arm written apps over in a windows environment? worse case scenario you could dual boot.
 
ARM already has their own 64-bit architecture. So you can actually compile and run 64-bit ARM programs (ARM64) for Windows on ARM.

They *can't* go x64, since that's an extension for the x86 ISA. What they (and MS) could do is add support for x64 emulation in the future with newer chips and iterations of WoA, to compliment the x86 emulation they already have. Who knows if it will happen for sure, since they'd rather you just compile a native 64-bit version for both architectures. That would work a lot better, if devs get onboard.
 
They'll definitely fix it, so Just Buy It!

Sad, how you delete my comments, but don't take any actions in regards to your stupidity and unprofessionalism.

You know where are they comming from you censoring p***y! 🙁
 
It is wrong to say that "Qualcomm's processors are much more power-efficient than their x86 competitors". It is true that Qualcomms processors use less power, but they are NOT more power efficient. Hypothetically, imagine an Intel CPU is using 15W, and a Qualcomm is using 7W. Then the Qualcomm is using less power. BUT, if, e.g. the Intel can finish the same task in 1/3 of the time that the Qualcomm does, then the Intel is more power efficient. This is the reason that ARM chips are hardly found in data centres - they use MORE electricity to complete the SAME tasks. I hope that ARM catches up. There are many articles that explain this problem with ARM power efficiency. Here is an Intro : http://www.datacenterjournal.com/arm-intel-instant-replay-risc-cisc/
 


Your comment and observation that Power Consumption and Power Efficiency are two different things is very astute and accurate, however there is a allot more to the equation when it comes to ARM in the datacenter. Namely, threads, heat, space...for certain workloads ARM chips ARE more efficient, otherwise we would see x86 chips in our phones (and an ill-fated experiment with atom chips doesn't really count).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom