Qualcomm's Oryon core: A long time in the making
Qualcomm’s new Oryon CPU core is seen as a long-awaited attempt to match Apple’s M‑series chips in performance and efficiency, with many noting its similarities to Apple’s wide-core ARM designs and the potential for a major speed boost in Windows and Android devices. Commenters debate whether Apple still holds a clear lead, pointing out that its single‑core performance and node advantages are strong but that multi‑core and GPU gains from Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 and other rivals have narrowed the gap. A parallel thread focuses on practicalities: pricing of Snapdragon X Elite laptops, weak GPU drivers and software compatibility on Windows ARM, and the importance of robust Linux support and open platforms versus Apple’s tightly controlled iPadOS ecosystem.
Oryon vs Apple’s M‑series and ARM cores
- Many see Qualcomm’s Oryon as a “Firestorm/M1‑style” wide core, enabled by an Apple-talent acquisition, finally giving Qualcomm a true desktop‑class ARM CPU.
- Others stress that Apple’s lead has largely come from being on the newest TSMC node; competitors on older nodes are now closing the gap in IPC and perf/W.
- Some note that ARM’s own Cortex designs (e.g., future X5) may again undercut the economics of custom cores like Oryon.
Android vs iPhone performance
- One side claims Android phones have been “uncompetitive” vs Apple and expects a big boost when Oryon reaches mobile.
- Others counter with benchmark links showing Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 close to or ahead of Apple A‑series in multi‑core and GPU, especially in “mobile‑style” workloads.
- There’s disagreement on which benchmarks meaningfully reflect real‑world use.
Apple M‑series trajectory and “lost talent” narrative
- Several commenters push back on rhetoric that Apple “lost their chip team,” noting steady (though not dramatic) per‑gen gains and very high perf/W.
- Others argue generational IPC gains, especially in integer, have been modest since M1 and that Intel/AMD have made large strides from a weaker baseline.
- There is debate over what performance growth to “expect” per generation and whether disappointment is mostly anchored in earlier, faster eras.
M4 iPad: power vs usefulness and openness
- One thread argues the “world’s fastest single‑core” being locked to iPadOS/App Store makes it more of a benchmark flex than a broadly useful compute resource.
- Counter‑arguments: many non‑technical users are highly productive on iPad; security, reliability, and curated apps matter more than openness or Linux.
- Ongoing dispute over whether iPad is primarily a “Netflix/consumption” device or a serious creative/professional tool, and whether M4 meaningfully changes that.
Linux, ARM laptops, and ecosystem issues
- Interest in running Linux on Oryon/Snapdragon X laptops, with discussion of ACPI vs Device Tree; current Qualcomm laptops often use DT except when booting Windows.
- Some report strong Linux performance via VMs on Apple Silicon and Asahi on Macs, but iPads remain effectively closed to native Linux.
- New Snapdragon X laptops are seen as promising but expensive, with immature GPU drivers and compatibility concerns.
Power efficiency, value, and pricing
- Multiple comparisons show Apple still far ahead in perf/W, especially single‑thread, though x86 mobile (Intel/AMD) has narrowed the gap since 10th gen.
- Disagreement over whether Apple RAM/storage pricing is market segmentation vs subsidizing low‑end models.
- Qualcomm is criticized for rumored very high SoC prices and premium laptop pricing that undercuts adoption.
Future competition (Nvidia, RISC‑V, others)
- Some hope for Nvidia and AMD laptop/desktop SoCs with strong integrated GPUs, regardless of ISA.
- RISC‑V laptops and new cores like Ascalon are mentioned as future contenders, but claims of near‑term parity with Zen 5 are widely viewed as unproven.