ARM based chip
ARM based chip
Are there known compabilities issues with arm chips, for example in Microsoft surface laptop pros? Are there generally issues with older games too (I'm thinking FoG 1, Pike and Shot)?
Re: ARM based chip
The chip users emulation to work, so there can be compatibility issues as the game and engine used was never designed from day one to with with them, so rule of thumb for me is if it works you're lucky, if it doesn't then there's little a developer or support could do to help without first making a driver fix or rewrite of the engine or game, plus of emulation, the spec would also need to be higher than normally required because of the performance hit of using a emulator in the first place, if it worked at all without some sort of glitches I'm sorry to say, never used or tested with one either and never seem any compatible done with them either
Re: ARM based chip
So stay with Intel. Thanks
Re: ARM based chip
depends tbh,
if it works, then that's fine don't stick with normal CPU, but if it doesn't, then there's nothing support or the developers could do about it, other than a re write tbh.
ARM and x86 are two different processor architectures, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. ARM, known for its RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing) design, is highly efficient and widely used in mobile devices and embedded systems. X86, with its CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computing) approach, is dominant in personal computers and servers, known for its performance capabilities.
Here's a more detailed comparison:
ARM:
Architecture: RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing) which simplifies processing tasks and enhances power efficiency according to Mason Infotech.
Power Efficiency: Excellent power efficiency, making it ideal for battery-powered devices.
Typical Applications: Smartphones, tablets, embedded systems, IoT devices, and increasingly, laptops.
Performance: Generally lower performance compared to x86 at the same clock speed, though this gap is narrowing with advancements in ARM architecture.
Cost: Often more cost-effective than x86 processors.
Example: Apple's M-series chips (M1, M2, etc.) used in iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks are ARM-based.
x86:
Architecture: CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computing), allowing for complex instructions and potentially more powerful processing according to C&T Solution Inc..
Power Efficiency: Generally less power efficient than ARM, but this is improving with newer generations.
Typical Applications: Desktop computers, laptops, servers, gaming consoles.
Performance: Typically higher performance for demanding applications and workloads.
Cost: Generally more expensive than ARM processors.
Examples: Intel and AMD processors used in most desktop and laptop computers.
In Conclusion:
The choice between ARM and x86 depends on the specific application and requirements. ARM's strengths lie in its power efficiency and cost-effectiveness, making it suitable for a wide range of devices where battery life and size are critical. X86 excels in performance and is the dominant architecture for demanding computing tasks.
so a copy paste of the difference and what can and does work and what does and doesn't and what each chip was made for, just for reference tbh
if it works, then that's fine don't stick with normal CPU, but if it doesn't, then there's nothing support or the developers could do about it, other than a re write tbh.
ARM and x86 are two different processor architectures, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. ARM, known for its RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing) design, is highly efficient and widely used in mobile devices and embedded systems. X86, with its CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computing) approach, is dominant in personal computers and servers, known for its performance capabilities.
Here's a more detailed comparison:
ARM:
Architecture: RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing) which simplifies processing tasks and enhances power efficiency according to Mason Infotech.
Power Efficiency: Excellent power efficiency, making it ideal for battery-powered devices.
Typical Applications: Smartphones, tablets, embedded systems, IoT devices, and increasingly, laptops.
Performance: Generally lower performance compared to x86 at the same clock speed, though this gap is narrowing with advancements in ARM architecture.
Cost: Often more cost-effective than x86 processors.
Example: Apple's M-series chips (M1, M2, etc.) used in iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks are ARM-based.
x86:
Architecture: CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computing), allowing for complex instructions and potentially more powerful processing according to C&T Solution Inc..
Power Efficiency: Generally less power efficient than ARM, but this is improving with newer generations.
Typical Applications: Desktop computers, laptops, servers, gaming consoles.
Performance: Typically higher performance for demanding applications and workloads.
Cost: Generally more expensive than ARM processors.
Examples: Intel and AMD processors used in most desktop and laptop computers.
In Conclusion:
The choice between ARM and x86 depends on the specific application and requirements. ARM's strengths lie in its power efficiency and cost-effectiveness, making it suitable for a wide range of devices where battery life and size are critical. X86 excels in performance and is the dominant architecture for demanding computing tasks.
so a copy paste of the difference and what can and does work and what does and doesn't and what each chip was made for, just for reference tbh