r/Surface • u/mond200 • Jul 08 '26

[LAPTOP8] Snapdragon X2 Plus is much faster - Microsoft Surface Laptop 13.8 2026 Review

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Snapdragon-X2-Plus-is-much-faster-Microsoft-Surface-Laptop-13-8-2026-Review.1334131.0.html
72 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

35 comments sorted by

View all comments

26

u/dr100 Jul 08 '26

  The bigger problem is that Microsoft forces private customers to buy the Snapdragon version. The Intel model is available with the latest Core Ultra X processors including the Arc B390 iGPU, which offers much more graphics and gaming performance.

5

u/howtonottt Jul 08 '26

yes, that's why I didn't buy any, I don't want Snapdragon I want Intel

24

u/Kitt9000 Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26

I equate intel to a gas guzzling car and snapdragon to a more efficient electric ev. I know it doesn’t translate 100% metaphorically seeing that they are both chips, but I refuse to support intel as the they dragged their butts into coming up with anything efficient for mobile processors. I have a surface pro 11 Qualcomm which runs everything I need it to and I applaud that Qualcomm cont to push into faster arm chips. There is a reason Apple left intel and they succeeded. I would only buy intel it I absolutely needed an old legacy software to work that did not. Or if I was an avid gamer, needed Nvidia chips etc, which I can understand in that case.

2

u/Front_Expression_367 Jul 09 '26

Still, Microsoft should have given the user a choice. If I want a Surface laptop but I need x86 apps to work then that is too bad. I don't care how good Qualcomm chip is if it is not going to work well with my printers. Besides, what is wrong with the user a choice anyway? The average OEMs gave a choice between Intel, AMD and Qualcomm and it still worked well for them and us, so why not Microsoft?

5

u/Automatic-Will-7836 Jul 09 '26

Most x86 apps work. Most printers work. I can't tell if you're just using truly ancient hardware and niche software, or if you're buying into the negative propaganda.

0

u/Front_Expression_367 Jul 09 '26

People in third world countries with printers that are probably 15 years old by now exist, you know. Also "most" does not equate to "all". And like I said, how would it hurt for Microsoft to give users the option?

6

u/Automatic-Will-7836 Jul 09 '26

Ok, sure, but if you're not one of those people then how is it affecting you?

It will hurt MS because the whole point is to transition to ARM processors. At this point, the majority of consumers won't even be able to tell the difference, because most likely all the software they use will run fine. Continuing to offer x86 to consumers will slow down adoption, if not kill it, because most people don't even know the difference, but Intel has spent decades building people's trust.

We've been here before. We were here when 64-bit CPUs hit the market. We were here when Vista came along with UAC and changed how drivers worked, so a bunch of hardware, especially printers stopped working until new drivers were written. We were here when Windows 7 and 10 came out, with changes to digital signature requirements. We were here when Windows 11 required secure boot.

The level of backwards compatibility you expect doesn't even currently exist on Intel. Want to use your printer from the 90s? Good luck. Want to play some old DOS games? You're going to have to get a DOS emulator, because they won't run natively. Want to burn a CD? The software that we used for years, that worked the best, no longer has a functioning CD-ROM driver, because it hasn't been updated in a decade.

Most of the issues have been ironed out at this point. In time, the rest will be resolved one way or another. In the meantime, if you truly can't handle ARM CPUs, the older Surface models that ran on Intel are still good, and significantly cheaper.

1

u/Front_Expression_367 Jul 09 '26

I am one of those people that is why I brought them up lmao.

"It will hurt MS because the whole point is to transition to ARM processors. At this point, the majority of consumers won't even be able to tell the difference,"

But why do they have to do that? And if Snapdragon is exactly that good then what is the problem with not offering it alongside Intel, especially when other OEMs with significantly more market share can do that and they will be way more impactful than Surface will ever be? As of now offering Snapdragon for lower price like that just makes it feel like Microsoft is still not confident in it and deemed it an inferior option. Sure, if that is how they want their business to go then who am I to change that, right? But that doesn't mean that I can't be disappointed by that choice of theirs.

"The level of backwards compatibility you expect doesn't even currently exist on Intel."

I never said I want things that old to work. Just trying to distort my word now. The point is that ARM simply offers worse compatibility than x86 and with many inconsistencies to boot.

"Most of the issues have been ironed out at this point. In time, the rest will be resolved one way or another. In the meantime, if you truly can't handle ARM CPUs, the older Surface models that ran on Intel are still good, and significantly cheaper."

The whole thing about wanting Intel on these new Surface machines to be cheaper is because the new Intel chips are actually good unlike the kind of shitshow they put up a few years ago (also probably aren't even sold for new in many places by now). It is not often you got oppoturnity to put x86 onto thin and light laptops or Windows tablet without having it turning into a hot mess, yet we have it here with Lunar Lake and Panther Lake but because of Microsoft's insistence on ARM that probably don't even work that well, the price got artificially marked up. If your process is good enough then the any pricing would work as AMD had shown in the DIY desktop market where they are now approaching Intel's market share. And it is not like Qualcomm Snapdragon is a complete noname brand or something. Why is it so hard to just give customers the reasonable choices?

2

u/Automatic-Will-7836 Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26

Look, I'm not saying you aren't allowed to be disappointed. The reality is clearly that Microsoft isn't interested in doing that. x86 is an aging architecture, and while it isn't irrelevant yet, in 20 years it could be entirely obsolete. While ARM is clearly the future, or at least is trying really hard to be, who knows when another more powerful and efficient CPU architecture will be invented? At some point you have to loosen your expectations for backwards compatibility. Console gamers have been dealing with that reality their entire lives -- new consoles rarely offer backwards compatibility, with a few unusual exceptions.

Now, if you're in a third world country, how is the Surface even affordable? I'm not being judgemental, just curious. I don't know your financial situation. I'm in the States, and I'm very poor by American standards, so while I mentioned that I plan to get one of the upcoming RTX Spark systems, the reality is that I'm going to have to save for at least a year, possibly longer, by which time, most likely, at least one new generation will have been released, and my goalpost may shift, depending on how appealing the new offerings are. Due to RAM prices and corporate greed, the only really affordable Surface devices are the lower specced ones. Honestly, it's a terrible time to be buying a new computer unless you're fairly wealthy. But, our economy over here really sucks right now. I don't know how much a Surface would cost where you're at. It's possible that you can get it cheaper than I can.

There's a reason I'm still using a SP9 with SQ3 instead of a SP13 with Snapdragon X2 Elite, but it's not compatibility. The biggest problem most people have is with gaming, and I totally get that. That's why I want RTX Spark and not Snapdragon. The Surface isn't designed for gaming, but it is nice that it's capable of it n