zlacker

>>ekianj+(OP)
The review shows ARM64 software support is still painful vs x86. For $200 for the 16gb model, this is the price point where you could just get an Intel N150 mini PC in the same form factor. And those usually come with cases. They also tend to pull 5-8w at idle, while this is 15w. Cool if you really want ARM64, but at this end of the performance spectrum, why not stick with the x86 stack where everything just works a lot easier?

>>eleven+O7
With RAM it will be costing notably more, with 4 cores instead of 12. I'd expect this to run circles around an N150 for single-threaded perf too.

They are not in the same class, which is reflected in the power envelope.

BTW what's up with people pushing N150 and N300 in every single ARM SBC thread? Y'all Intel shareholders or something? I run both but not to the exclusion of everything else. There is nothing I've failed to run successfully on my ARM ones and the only thing I haven't tried is gaming.

>>baobun+q9
1. Wow, never thought I'd need to do an investment disclosure for an HN comment. But sure thing: I'm sure Intel is somewhere in my 401K's index funds, but also probably Qualcomm. But I'm not a corporate shill, thank you very much for the good faith. Just a hobbyist looking to not get seduced by the lastest trend. If I were an ARM developer that'd be different, I get that.

2. The review says single core Geekbench performance is 1290, same as i5-10500 which is also similar to N150, which is 1235.

3. You can still get N150s with 16gb ram in a case for $200 all in.