I wouldn't think anybody should have expected the addition of the new CPU options to dominate overnight. What is a "big deal" is how these options are all getting their "surface" treatment- they aren't here to "steal the show" from the other available devices that use Intel chips.
The article claims that the new Surface Pro machines did not perform as well as expected. My question is How could they make such a big mistake?
Please help me understand this. The AMD stuff was said to be the best ever, but Intell is still better. How is that possible?
The article doesn't seem to mention how the AMD Chips that were used are a generation older than the Intel chip in the Intel Surface 3 they compared it to. It also fails to mention how the AMD-based Surface's have unparalleled battery life/performance for their size and capability, Something which is repeated in a number of the reviews the article mentions. They don't seem to provide any solid numbers, but from the article, we have this:
But as my colleague Dan Seifert noted in his review, the AMD chipset still struggled with most games and even basic 4K video playback.
What games? How did it struggle? How were they playing 4K Video? They kind of gloss over this information but it seems rather central to their review. It sounds to me like they expected the new AMD chip to make it some sort of gaming powerhouse, which is pretty ridiculous.