Welcome guest. Before posting on our computer help forum, you must register. Click here it's easy and free.

Author Topic: Did Microsft bet against Intel and lose?  (Read 9845 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Geek-9pm

    Topic Starter

    Mastermind
  • Geek After Dark
  • Thanked: 1009
    • Gekk9pm bnlog
  • Certifications: List
  • Computer: Specs
  • Experience: Expert
  • OS: Windows 10
Did Microsft bet against Intel and lose?
« on: November 07, 2019, 09:31:27 PM »
This is from an article in the Verge.
It is another episode  in the INTEL VS. AMD debate.
Quote
By Chaim [email protected] Nov 7, 2019, 5:11pm EST

Microsoft bet against Intel with its new Surfaces — and lost
The chipmaking king keeps its crown, for now
Link:
https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2019/11/7/20954044/microsoft-amd-qualcomm-intel-processors-arm-surface-laptop-3-pro-x-future-computers
They go on to say:
Quote
The focus on non-Intel chips was a big part of Microsoft’s 2019 Surface announcement. The company went out of its way to highlight the new, co-engineered Ryzen Surface Edition processor for the 15-inch Surface Laptop 3, which was optimized specifically for Microsoft’s design.
What went wrong?   :o
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?  :(

BC_Programmer


    Mastermind
  • Typing is no substitute for thinking.
  • Thanked: 1114
    • Yes
    • Yes
    • BC-Programming.com
  • Certifications: List
  • Computer: Specs
  • Experience: Beginner
  • OS: Windows 8
Re: Did Microsft bet against Intel and lose?
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2019, 04:01:55 AM »
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.

Quote
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:

Quote
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.







I was trying to dereference Null Pointers before it was cool.