But the end point is clearly defined - it's a rapid, complete hardware and software transition, with major benefits. In the interim Rosetta2 will provide fairly good performance of emulated x86 apps. But which Windows benchmarks were native ARM binaries and which were emulated x86 binaries? The article is very unclear on that.Īpple's goal (for both themselves and Mac app developers) is rapidly port all x86 MacOS apps to Apple Silicon. It makes sense that even native Windows-on-ARM benchmarks would be slower than native Apple Silicon benchmarks. It seems the Windows ARM emulator for x86 code is also slower than Rosetta2. Apparently the Qualcomm ARM CPUs are much slower, as are the SQ1 and SQ2 ARM CPUs co-designed by Microsoft. We know the M1 is really fast and so is Rosetta2. I couldn't tell which Windows-on-ARM tests were emulated and which were native.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |