On the one hand, Microsoft’s move to bring Windows 10 to an entirely new chip architecture is one of the most exciting things to happen in the mobile computing space in years. On the other hand, early reviews of the Windows-powered HP Envy x2 and Asus NovaGo leave me wondering who exactly the target market for the first Windows 10 computers with Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 chips would be.
The Asus convertible laptop is priced at $599, and the HP tablet with a detachable keyboard costs $999.
The good news is they reportedly offer stellar battery life and always-connected features thanks to their integrated 4G LTE modems. But they also seem to offer the kind of CPU performance you’d expect from a $200 laptop, not a $1000 computer.
Maybe we shouldn’t think of these devices as traditional Windows computers at all, but as a new category of devices that just happen to be able to run some legacy apps when you need them. But the truth is that anything you can do on a Windows on ARM PC, you can also do on PC with and Intel or AMD chip… Probably faster (although maybe with a few less hours of battery life).
HP Envy x2 (Qualcomm Snapdragon 835)
Laptop Magazine has published reviews of the HP Envy x2 and Asus NovaGo, including a few benchmark results. Computers with 7th or 8th-gen Intel Core chips scored about 3 times higher in Geekbench 4.
It might not seem fair to compare a device with a Snapdragon 835 processor to one with a Core i7 chip, but if you’re considering whether to spend $1000 on an HP Envy x2 or $1,100 on a Lenovo Miix 720, I think it makes sense to expect similar performance.
But after running a bunch of benchmarks, the folks at TechSpot figured it makes more sense to compare Windows 10 devices with Snapdragon 835 chips to those with Intel’s entry-level Celeron Apollo Lake processors. You know… the kind that you can find in $300 laptops. And even then, the Apollo Lake chips come out ahead in most performance tests.
Windows 10 on ARM can run apps that are natively compiled for ARM-based chips, including the Microsoft Edge web browser. And when running those applications, TechSpot notes that a Snapdragon 835 chip seems to be roughly equivalent to an Intel Celeron N3450 quad-core Apollo Lake processor.
But most popular Windows applications aren’t natively compiled for ARM, so Windows 10 on ARM uses emulation to let you run 32-bit x86 applications. The first thing to keep in mind is that there’s currently no support for 64-bit x86 apps. The second is that not all 32-bit apps will run either. And the third is that those that do run are a lot slower than native apps.
For example, here are some scores TechSpot got for Google’s Octane 2.0 browser benchmark:
- Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 with Edge (ARM native) browser: 10,712
- Intel Celeron N3450 with Chrome (x86) browser: 10,629
- Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 with Chrome (x86) browser: 3,500
In other words: run native apps and you get the kind of performance you’d expect from a cheap laptop, for 2-3 times the price. Run x86 apps that require emulation and you get significantly worse performance… if you can run those apps at all.
TechSpot
TechSpot also has results from benchmarks including PCMark, Cinebench, x.264 HD, Handbrake, and Photshop that tell a similar story. In fact, the Envy x2 with a Snapdragon 835 is astonishingly bad at rendering phots and videos, taking up to 4.5 as long as a Chuwi Lapbook Air with a Celeron N3450 chip to apply an iris blur effect effect in Photoshop.
TechSpot
Interestingly, the Envy x2 is a bit faster than the Lapbook Air when it comes to file compression using Winrar or 7-zip. I wonder if part of the reason is that the HP tablet has faster storage.
TechSpot
Despite all of this, there are still some reasons to be excited about Windows on ARM. It really does seem to offer better battery life and lower power consumption, which allows for smaller computers with fanless designs that you might only have to charge every few days.
TechSpot
But if you want the best performance, you’re probably going to want to stick with native ARM apps… which is probably why all of the first-gen Windows on ARM computers will ship with Windows 10 S rather than the full version of Windows 10. By limiting you to installing only apps that come from the Microsoft Store, Microsoft is basically ensuring that you’ll get the best possible performance from the apps you can install.
Still, one of the key differentiators between Windows 10 on ARM and the now-defunct Windows RT is that you can run x86 apps on computers with ARM processors now. You just need to switch/upgrade from Windows 10 S to Windows 10 Pro… and doing that will probably make the limitations of the new software a lot more clear.
If Microsoft can encourage more developers to create Universal Windows Platform versions of their apps so that they have native support for ARM processors, I guess I could see some folks paying a premium price for long battery life and always-connected capabilities… even if CPU performance is stuck at Apollo Lake-like levels.
But Microsoft’s been trying to attract developers to create Windows Store/Microsoft Store versions of their apps for years, with limited success. It’s not clear that things will change anytime soon. So it’s not clear if Windows 10 on ARM will become more useful anytime soon.
Then again, I guess there are three other things that could help:
- Cheaper Windows on ARM computers
- Faster ARM processors with more competitive performance
- Windows on ARM optimizations
The first Windows on ARM computers to ship are already using dated tech: they’re powered by Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 835 processor, which is last year’s flagship. Newer phones are already shipping with a more powerful Snapdragon 845 processor. Maybe that chip will offer better Windows performance… if device makers decide to stick with the platform long enough to try upgrading their chips.
As for lower prices, I suspect that if the Asus NovaGo, HP Envy x2, and Lenovo Miix 630 experience sluggish sales, we could eventually see price cuts. But if companies end up selling them below cost, that doesn’t provide much incentive to produce follow-ups.
I think if we really do start to see cheaper Windows on ARM devices, they’re likely to feature cheaper processors, like the Rockchip and MediaTek chips that are used in low-end Android tablets and Chromebooks.
We could also see devices with lower-quality displays, cheaper build quality, and other cost-cutting measures. But I’m not sure that would make Windows on ARM computers more attractive.
Finally, it’s possible that Microsoft could roll out future software updates that improves the performance of Windows on ARM, particularly when it comes to emulation. I don’t know if that will happen, but there’s always a possibility that the expensive Windows 10 on ARM devices hitting the streets today will become more useful over time through software updates… something we regularly see happen to devices that ship with Google’s Chrome operating system, for example.
Leave a Reply
55 Comments on "Windows on ARM benchmarks show performance isn’t its strong suit"
Waiting for Tobi to come here and explain why ARM64 is going to outperform Core i7’s at the same price point and why UWP is the future and how everyone is jumping on UWP now.
And he did not disappoint…
You are bothered by something it seems. I’m trying to have a proper discussion but i’m not used to the discus type comments, i tend to type alot…why i’m more used to win 10 subreddit.
The issue is that you have a very clear pattern of only commenting on articles about Microsoft and you really only comment when the article isn’t all sunshine praise about Microsoft. You’re quick to downplay anything not positive about Windows On ARM and the ARM architecture in general and you keep repeating the same borderline propaganda to any user that didn’t have something positive to say. A discussion is fine, but when I noticed you were consistently rushing to many news sites to post the exact same things in defense of WoA, that’s when it became apparent that it’s more about PR on behalf of Microsoft for you rather than an actual discussion. Hence why I accurately predicted you would be here to post your same comments for the most part as replies to others.
I comment mainly on MS sites because i’m a fan of their ecosystem and i agree with their vision especially the new leadership, for the future of computing and gaming. I comment in order to help people understand and counter all the FUD and ignorance against MS perpetuated across the webs. Liliputing is a linux lovers den, i’m aware of that, that’s why it is more fun to go into the heart of the lions den. I have been reading this site for three years, brad is a great writer. But yea…i hang mainly on MS and tech related subreddits but just lately getting used to the discus comments cuz the all the clickbait garbage on mspoweruser and always negative comments without merit were very annoying.
Anyways back to the discussion, i will try to give you a good response to your big post.
1. Stop lying…i never implied or stated ARM64 will outperform intel i7….but Nvidia ARM chips ARE surpassing intel integrated Iris graphics (used with i7) in the GPU compute with the nvidia Xavier /tegra x3. Not all ARM is built equal.
2. Adobe’s words: “UWP is the future of the windows platform.” they are already starting to build their core assets inside UWP for all their apps, not just Adobe XD.
About everything on the planet is faster than Intel’s integrated graphics. Intel’s integrated graphics never meant to offer performance. Compare Tegra with Ryzen APUs.
I compared the Iris graphics because the context was regarding i7 15watt chips vs ARM. I dont know what the gpu compute of mobile rysen APUs is.
In the meantime, I’ve repeatedly said that Windows on ARM laptops should only cost $100-200 considering the performance you get is comparable to an Intel laptop in that price range. If OEM’s can get down to that price point for ARM laptops, then they can go crazy with it and it’ll probably be somewhat successful. But pricing it as high as $1000? That puts it into Ultrabook, Surface, and even cheaper gaming laptop territory. You can definitely get laptops with Core i7’s, 8 GB of RAM, and maybe an NVidia GPU within that price range. Not even the Snapdragon 845 comes close in performance to a laptop Core i7. They’re setting up Windows On ARM for failure by pricing it this high.
I agree the price is too high and i have explained in another comment that the hp also includes typecover and pen which is $200 worth and also has premium parts unlike most $300 laptops.
But what you are suggesting for pricing is a joke at $100-200. The processor and UFS alone is $200 worth. The hp tablet shouldve started at $649 same as ipad pro, at the most.
Then that’ll kill WoA if they don’t go down to that price point. At those higher price points, you’re paying 2-3x the price, for 50% of the performance at best, only 32-bit x86 apps, and no AAA UWP games or UWP apps compiled for x86/x64. That’s not going to fly with consumers. That’s free marketing for Intel right there too.
And that’s precisely why MS isnt targeting these first gen at consumers. They are being targeted to enterprise with mobile workforce, business professionals who travel often and want something always connected, light, and long battery life. You know…the kinds of people with deep pockets. MS is setting the stage for better ARM processors in future. If any consumers or fans buy the devices, that is just icing on cake.
You have to compare it against devices that match the use case – other laptops. The use case of an iPad is quite different. $400 is a difficult sell as is.
The HP envy is a premium ARM tablet with inking…..how is it different use case from ipad pro??
The technology/concept is not at fault, it’s MS and manufacturers who are trying to position this as something that it’s not, in a price range that makes no sense, regardless that the later kills any chance the former may have had at some point.
They can thank their brainless business execs who thought they had some magical money-making concept for the market with these, when they really should have targetted this at schools and made an effort to go against Chromebooks.
Atom brand was already killed for the tablets and mobile form factors… Atom architecture only exists as celerons and Pentium mainly for low tier laptops/hybrids and mini PCs like intel Nuc.
Snapdragon 855 or 865 will already surpass everything on the atom architecture. Dont confuse Native ARM64 Performance with emulated x86. The applications can either be recompiled or UWP.
I knew you’d be here spreading your false propaganda about Microsoft and ARM. Clearly you didn’t even read the article this time. If you did, you’d have seen native benchmarks were done and it shows that even native ARM64 performance at best is comparable to a low end entry level Celeron CPU.
Once again, no one wants a watered down UWP experience. And no dev wants to waste time and resources to recompile for UWP when they’re already strapped for time and resources at it is. It’s cheaper, easier, and more profitable to just release applications like games on Steam and instantly reach a wider audience than UWP ever will. Why shoot yourself in the foot and release for such a limited audience?
What’s also hilarious is that you’ve been talking about UWP being universal and AAA UWP gaming on these Windows on ARM laptops, yet not a single AAA UWP game right now actually supports ARM or even 32 bit OS’s. UWP is not some magic universal platform. There are very good reasons developers only build for x64 or a specific platform.
Well duh…devs wouldnt have a reason to compile for ARM64 because the devices weren’t there and support in Visual Studio is recent for ARM64, i think starting with Spring Creators Update.
There are plenty of free to play GameLoft UWP games with ARM32 support… Age of Empires: Castle Seige has arm support. But those arent AAA games. MineCraft runs butter smooth on ARM64 Even though it is still only ARM32 support.
Minecraft Windows 10 Edition (aka Pocket Edition) runs perfectly fine because that’s what the pocket edition was meant for. I’ve had Minecraft Pocket Edition running super smooth as far as my original HTC EVO 4G, back when the leading 4G standard was still WiMax instead of LTE. If we start getting into the actual full fledged PC version of Minecraft or even the console editions, the story changes there.
As far as ARM64 support goes, I still don’t see it happening for most AAA games. The system requirements for many of the newer games make it unfeasible for even a Surface Book with a GeForce 940M to run it acceptably. Now with ARM devices, we are suddenly taking a nosedive in performance and TDP. Not to mention the RAM requirements.
Lets not discuss the crappy java minecraft. The pocket edition is simply the C# edition. I didnt say you are going to see AAA games on Windows on Arm right away or automatically, my point was the potential is there for many games. Obviously the graphical detail would be reduced greatly and locked to 30 or 60 fps just like console but the Windows 10 SDK and unreal engine are designed to Scale from 20 teraflops multiGPU PC to 1.3 teraflops xbox one. ARM has to surpass atleast 1.5 teraflops to 2 teraflops gpu single precision compute before AAA gaming on ARM becomes more viable with UWP.
Well, there you have it. This was the first and the last time I was truly excited about Windows on ARM:
U mean the last time you were excited about an RISC architecture….MIPS isnt ARM.
ARM has been around for almost as long as x86, and as always, ARM is still and will always be farrrr behind x86 in terms of performance.
Arm has been around but i was correcting him… MIPS, ARM, PowerPC are all RISC architectures.
Fair enough
There are benchmarks showing ThunderX2 (32c) outperforming Broadwell (18c), and being competitive with Skylake (22c). So not far behind, though obviously none of those are low-power devices.
That’s the thing though, it may be competitive with more mainstream Broadwell and Skylake CPU’s. But Intel has shown they can scale up x86 at a higher level than ARM can scale up. If that’s what ARM has to offer on the high end, Intel has Xeon Phi to offer on their high end which brings us into super computer territory, but still based on the same architectures in mainstream CPU’s. ARM simply isn’t meant to compete with Intel in the mainstream and high end computing market. ARM doesn’t scale up as well, but it scales down very well whereas Intel has struggled to scale down x86 competitively. ARM trying to enter the high end space and compete with Intel Xeon, is like Intel Atom trying to compete with Snapdragon and Tegra.
“ARM” can scale up to whatever their licensees need it to. Most of their customers so far are in the embedded/mobile space, so that’s what the implementations have been optimized for. The ThunderX2 is one of the first implementations of the ARM architecture targeting HPC applications, and has been selected for at least two supercomputers; the EU Mont-Blanc (with 3000 ThunderX2 cores), and the British GW4 Isambard (over 10000 ThunderX2 cores).
There is absolutely nothing about ARMv8 that would make it inherently un-scaleable, just as there is nothing about x86-64 that makes it inherently scaleable.
ARM beats the xeons in performance per watt, that is what the giant server farms are interested in more than having extra performance that would never get used. They would save up to 50% in electricity costs right off the bat.
The ultra high end Super Computing will belong to quantum computers soon. IBM and MS are both working on quantum.
You totally misunderstand quantum computing. First of all, we’re still a long way off from quantum super computers. Second, quantum computers aren’t magically more powerful than classical computers. They’re able to crunch through certain algorithms magnitudes faster than computers today, but that doesn’t mean outside of specialized computing, quantum computers are faster at everything. Take cryptomining for example. The consensus right now is that quantum computers wouldn’t have much of an advantage over regular computers when it comes to mining crypto currencies.
Intel does not need to worry about quantum computers cutting into the high performance super computing market anytime soon. And as for today, they also don’t need to worry about ARM. It’s the same situation as WoA computers. 50% less performance for 25-50% power efficiency. It’ll be an interesting experiment for some people, but the world will largely move on and stick with what they know works.
Since the SD845 is receiving Coreboot support, on the next line of Windows on Snapdragon computers, just throw away windows and run Linux and enjoy the swathe of natively compiled ARM programs.
HP dont mind, they will make a sale regardless. Your pen might become useless though.
This seems a lot like their XP Mode strategy for getting people to move to Windows 7. Sadly XP Mode sounds like a better solution than emulation that sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t and is unsupported.
The ARM processor isn’t the issue, its the platform. All of this is winRT all over again. Unless the apps are compiled to Arm then its a waste. MS has only itself to blame for “hinting” good win32 support. That is a lie. If it can’t even match a Celeron it has little reason to exist. The return rate on these will exceed the original SURFACE RT tablets.
I don’t know what a Snapdragon 835 costs manufacturers, but maybe the problem is they’re confusing the demand for computer devices with demand for smartphones. People will pay outrageous prices for high-end smartphones w/ SD 835s because they don’t realize the tech world has changed and that they don’t need that power on their smartphones. But people already realize that with desktop/laptop computers. Or more likely perhaps, Qualcomm is able to get very high prices for SD 835s because of that consumer demand for such smartphones, and these products need to be priced that high to cover costs.
Perhaps Windows on Arm would be more attractive with SD 6xx series instead?
Snapdragon 845 sells for $85-88 i believe, the top tier snapdragons go in the $80 range. The HP pricetag includes an awesome typecover with kickstand and a pen which is roughly $200 value comparing with Surfaces or ipad pros.
So HP is selling for $799 the actual tablet portion. But they also used alot of premium parts like UFS storage which is basically the replacement of emmc yet as fast as nand SSDs. And that aluminum chassis which is 1 mm thinner than ipad pro and the gorgeous screen. If HP wanted they could easily bring price of such devices down to $499.
The Asus NovaGo sells for $599
Still triple the price of a cheap Intel Celeron laptop for the same performance. At $599 and above, you can get an Intel Ultrabook with at least an i5 CPU which is magnitudes above even a Snapdragon 845 in performance. Even if the price drops to $499 that’s still way too expensive for Atom/Celeron levels of performance. These Windows On ARM laptops belong in the $99-199 price range. Otherwise, they’re just setting it up for failure when consumers start questioning why performance is horrendous.
Stop arguing with Toby…
It’s not worth the waste of time unless it is your ego getting in the way. Arm as well as Windows S is dead on arrival.
But maybe that means it’s the first part of my suggestion, that the manufacturers are confusing the demand for computer devices with the demand for smartphones.
Half the performance for +20% battery life? Not very compelling.