this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024
88 points (98.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43471 readers
1503 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hmmm 3 hours battery is definitely a major downside, given it charges off usb c less of an issue but still
Was actually considering getting one of those copilot pcs once the Linux support catches up, supposedly people are charging those things once a week or so
My understanding is that Arm chips don't have any fundamental advantage over x86 chips. They're more efficient simply because they've been optimized to be more efficient for so long. I've heard that upcoming Intel and AMD chips could be able to compete with the new Arm cpu's, so if you're not going to get a new laptop soon, it seems worthwhile to just wait and see
Not planning to give up on the trusty ThinkPad soon anyway
So far the evidence I've seen has been overwhelmingly that arm chips are way more power efficient
People say it makes no difference but I've yet to see an x86 device come close to the arm ones battery wise, seems like a strange coincidence
Yes, but that's my point, you see. Because Arm historically has been used for mobile and small devices, there's been a strong incentive for decades to emphasize power efficiency. Because x86 historically has been used for desktops, there's been a strong incentive to emphasize power. It's only been very recently that Arm attempted to have comparable power, and even more recently that x86 attempted to have comparable power efficiency.
Sure, Arm is currently more efficient, but the general consensus is that there's no inherent reason for why Arm must be more efficient than x86. In other words, the only reason it is more efficient is just because they've been focusing on efficiency for longer.
Both AMD and Intel's current gen x86 cpu's are, from what I can tell, basically spitting distance away from Qualcomm's Arm cpu's in terms of battery life, and rumor has it that both x86 companies should be able to match Arm chips in efficiency by next gen.
So if efficiency is a priority for you, I think it's worthwhile to wait and see what the cpu companies cook up in the next couple of years, especially as both AMD and Intel seem to be heavily focused on maximizing efficiency right now