All things related to technology hardware, with a focus on computing hardware.
Rules (Click to Expand):
Follow the Lemmy.world Rules - https://mastodon.world/about
Be kind. No bullying, harassment, racism, sexism etc. against other users.
No Spam, illegal content, or NSFW content.
Please stay on topic, adjacent topics (e.g. software) are fine if they are strongly relevant to technology hardware. Another example would be business news for hardware-focused companies.
Please try and post original sources when possible (as opposed to summaries).
If posting an archived version of the article, please include a URL link to the original article in the body of the post.
Some other hardware communities across Lemmy:
Icon by "icon lauk" under CC BY 3.0
Just watch how Qualcomm will hype these chips to the sky, but when the independent reviews hit, they'll turn out to be pretty mediocre and not even close to being worth the hassle of dealing with the giant list of issues with WoA.
When will they learn that architecture change is a game of software support and getting devs on board for it. The last launch was a dumpsterfire precisely because of this.
You can brute force x86 emulation with more cores and more gigahertz. But why use an arm cpu at that point? Modern x86 mobile chips also came a long way in terms of power and efficiency. A quad core desktop cpu from 2013 is enough for casual computing still.
A good desktop quad core from 2013 will even be fine for moderately demanding tasks (complex excel sheets, data heavy line of business apps, a lot of gaming outside AAA from the last few years), as long as your other components are fine (NVMe SSD, at least 16 GB high speed RAM, good dGPU that's not older than 6-7 years, respectable cooling).
Do we need more than a handful of cores nowadays?
Depends on what you’re doing, but I don’t see why we shouldn’t have lots of cores