News x86 reigns supreme as Snapdragon X Elite chips captured just 0.8% of the market with 720,000 units sold in Q3 2024 — Qualcomm misses out on rising...

[usertests]

Qualcomm shoulda put out a series of 3 to 5 ATX/mATX/ITX/etc boards for us.

Not necessary, but they did make a devkit that was somewhat cheaper than the laptops... only to cancel it.

Did you guys seriously just compare a chip line that just came out this year to one that's been on the market for 40+ years? Windows on Arm is not gonna takeover overnight. Give it a few years.

So if I go look at the Snapdragon X Elite marketing materials from a few months ago, am I going to find a slide saying "At Qualcomm, We're Not Ready. Check Back in a Few Years."?

They positioned their laptop chips against x86 chips that were just as good and could come with a discrete GPU at the same price.

There is no guarantee that Windows on Arm will "take over" ever. Any supposed disadvantage of x86 can be remedied. Not that I want to use Windows anymore. Did Qualc bother to get Linux working on these chips yet?

 

[bit_user]

Did you guys seriously just compare a chip line that just came out this year to one that's been on the market for 40+ years? Windows on Arm is not gonna takeover overnight. Give it a few years.

Windows on Arm has been around for a lot longer. Way back in 2019, Microsoft introduced the Surface Pro X, which used a SoC called the SQ1. That was made under contract by Qualcomm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Pro_X
​

Even Qualcomm had products in this market before this.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/14024/lenovo-to-launch-a-qualcomm-snapdragon-8cx-laptop-with-5g
​

The Snapdragon 8cx line would continue for 3 generations, before Qualcomm changed branding for the Oryon-based SoCs to Snapdragon X.

 

[bit_user]

Not necessary, but they did make a devkit that was somewhat cheaper than the laptops... only to cancel it.

Yeah, but it had some hardware issues (related to the Displayport PHY?) and by now devs can just buy a Snapdragon X laptop.

Before that, Microsoft have a few generations of similar Windows-on-Arm dev kits for somewhere around $600ish.

However, I think @ezst036 's point was to make products that are friendly to the DIY/homebuilt/maker community, which even these lower-cost boxes aren't really. As far as I'm aware, this isn't a community Qualcomm has ever seriously tried to engage. Maybe the closest they got was some dev kits for robotics?

Any supposed disadvantage of x86 can be remedied.

I respectfully disagree.

 

[thestryker]

Nvidia doesn't have a good history in the smartphone & tablet market. The first Google Pixel 2-in-1 (tablet/notebook) was based on a Nvidia SoC and just about the only such device to use it (other than Nvidia Shield). Before that, Nvidia tried to break into the phone SoC market, but failed pretty miserably.

I got one of the Motorola Tegra 2 based tablets for my mom and I had one of the Asus Tegra 4 based ones. For it's time the 2 was definitely better than the 4 during its. I think their big problems then was not investing enough on the design side so they were split between their custom cores and off the shelf. This seemed to lead to substandard SoCs in performance, efficiency, or both. I don't think that market was ever going to be a money maker for them, but they did seem to fumble the market they could have carved out.

 

[Kondamin]

That is not a bad percentage for a new product line at that price point.
Anything more would be delusional.

Someone like beelink or minisforum should release a mini pc based on a mediatek or Samsung soc if we want to see more adoption

 

[Amdlova]

Nvidia doesn't have a good history in the smartphone & tablet market. The first Google Pixel 2-in-1 (tablet/notebook) was based on a Nvidia SoC and just about the only such device to use it (other than Nvidia Shield). Before that, Nvidia tried to break into the phone SoC market, but failed pretty miserably.

Granted, they're not the same company they were back then, but their success certainly isn't guaranteed. Qualcomm has been having enough trouble breaking into the laptop market, even though it's been hugely successful in the phone and tablet markets. If anyone from the Arm camp can make the leap, it ought to be Qualcomm.

Qualcomm error is making a potato portable machine with apple price on it. If Qualcomm want to be on market they need make it cheaper than atom devices. Who want to pay 1700usd on a premium device when you can get a high end gaming laptop

 

[P.Amini]

Unfortunately, the article didn't focus on laptops only though. It focused on all PC shipments. I'm sure the lions share of that is laptops, but still an Apples to Oranges comparison, especially since Qualcomm currently only sells in one PC segment at the moment.

Now, all that being said. I don't think Qualcomm has a shot in you know what of being in 50% of laptop sales in 4 years. 20% would be a feat, 50% would take something spectacular which thus far, they haven't demonstrated.

You said exactly what I wanted to say.

 

[mac_angel]

My understanding has it has to do with Intel not wanting to license x86/x64, IDK how true that really is, but that is what many have claimed. Given Intel's situation they might be more receptive these days however. AMD also owns a chunk of the license so they would need to play ball as well.

yea, I believe it's Intel that owns the x86, and AMD that owns the X64.
NVidia and Qualcomm could easily play hardball and force both AMD and Intel to license those though through anti-monopoly (antitrust) laws.

 

[thestryker]

My understanding has it has to do with Intel not wanting to license x86/x64, IDK how true that really is, but that is what many have claimed. Given Intel's situation they might be more receptive these days however. AMD also owns a chunk of the license so they would need to play ball as well.

Intel has never licensed x86 in any fashion similar to Arm's licensing. The current active agreements between Intel and AMD are basically just technology cross license agreements there isn't any ongoing monetary flow. This was largely driven by the failure of IA64 and success of x86-64. Now you can't really have a modern x86 compatible system without both Intel and AMD technologies.

The only way I could see licensing even working is if AMD and Intel were willing to create a joint organization, transfer over relevant technologies and then license accordingly. I'd be shocked if this would make any sense at all to them.

NVidia and Qualcomm could easily play hardball and force both AMD and Intel to license those though through anti-monopoly (antitrust) laws.

There is no monopoly in laptops, desktops, edge or servers though so I have a hard time believing this would be a viable strategy.

 

[ryanshultz]

Click bait? Misleading header? Or lack of journalism?