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
> I'd expect this to run circles around an N150 for single-threaded perf too

It has basically the same single-core performance as an N150 box

Random N150 result: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/10992465

> BTW what's up with people pushing N150 and N300 in every single ARM SBC thread?

At this point I expect a lot of people have been enticed by niche SBCs and then discovered that driver support is a nightmare, as this article shows. So in time, everyone discovers that cheap x86-64 boxes accomplish their generic computing goals easier than these niche SBCs, even if the multi-core performance isn't the same.

Being able to install a mainline OS and common drivers and just get to work is valuable.