It only can on the high end. There are no x86 CPUs that’d allow you to play lightweight games while the entire system is pulling just 3 watts.
Not to mention the difference in heat generation. Even at comparable power use, the Steam Deck is loud and getting hot, while something like an AYN Thor is silent and barely warm to the touch.
Which is why every single mobile and low power device in existence is based on either ARM or RISC-V.
Another problem is that x86 is needlessly expensive, because Intel and AMD have a duopoly. You either buy at their insane prices, or you don’t buy at all.
It’s an outdated ISA that is still only used, because the two giants abuse their market power. Even if x86 could match ARM 1-to-1, there’d be no reason to stick with x86, just for the price difference alone.
If it can, then I’d like to see it happen. Even Intel’s Celerons use more power than average ARM SOCs, while offering performance straight out of the 1990s.
CPUs from the N100 - Core 3 N355 lineup are more reasonable, but still fall behind by a large margin, and throttle easily (more on the N355 side). Whereas AMD is still struggling to produce anything that isn’t a mobile heater.
What x86 chip offers both performance and power-efficiency comparable to, say, a Snapdragon 8 Gen 2?
Isa plays little role in power efficiency or heat.
This is completely incorrect, both in theory, and in practice, as we can clearly see. x86, as a CISC ISA, has been specifically designed without any power-efficiency considerations.
As opposed to ARM and RISC-V, which pretty much exist specifically to be power efficient, as is very common for RISC ISAs.
This is, quite literally, what distinguishes these two ISAs, and what made both of them happen in the first place.
If arm could match 1:1 it still wouldnt be viable. It’d need to be at least 10% more preformant for the same spec range.
Again, I’d like to see some reasoning or examples behind this.
Why would ARM need to offer better performance to be viable? It’s already incomparably cheaper, more open, more power-efficient, and requires less cooling at comparable performance and power drain levels.
It is already superior in every category. What you’re asking for is not only unreasonable, but also pointless and unnecessary.
Why not x86? It can basically match arm for perf per watt and its perf per dollar is better.
It only can on the high end. There are no x86 CPUs that’d allow you to play lightweight games while the entire system is pulling just 3 watts.
Not to mention the difference in heat generation. Even at comparable power use, the Steam Deck is loud and getting hot, while something like an AYN Thor is silent and barely warm to the touch.
Which is why every single mobile and low power device in existence is based on either ARM or RISC-V.
Another problem is that x86 is needlessly expensive, because Intel and AMD have a duopoly. You either buy at their insane prices, or you don’t buy at all.
It’s an outdated ISA that is still only used, because the two giants abuse their market power. Even if x86 could match ARM 1-to-1, there’d be no reason to stick with x86, just for the price difference alone.
It can match on all ends. Isa plays little role in power efficiency or heat. X86 would have no overhead on games.
If arm could match 1:1 it still wouldnt be viable. It’d need to be at least 10% more preformant for the same spec range.
If it can, then I’d like to see it happen. Even Intel’s Celerons use more power than average ARM SOCs, while offering performance straight out of the 1990s.
CPUs from the N100 - Core 3 N355 lineup are more reasonable, but still fall behind by a large margin, and throttle easily (more on the N355 side). Whereas AMD is still struggling to produce anything that isn’t a mobile heater.
What x86 chip offers both performance and power-efficiency comparable to, say, a Snapdragon 8 Gen 2?
This is completely incorrect, both in theory, and in practice, as we can clearly see. x86, as a CISC ISA, has been specifically designed without any power-efficiency considerations.
As opposed to ARM and RISC-V, which pretty much exist specifically to be power efficient, as is very common for RISC ISAs.
This is, quite literally, what distinguishes these two ISAs, and what made both of them happen in the first place.
Again, I’d like to see some reasoning or examples behind this.
Why would ARM need to offer better performance to be viable? It’s already incomparably cheaper, more open, more power-efficient, and requires less cooling at comparable performance and power drain levels.
It is already superior in every category. What you’re asking for is not only unreasonable, but also pointless and unnecessary.