ARM processors for Windows laptops are here to stay for the third time. In the new Acer Swift Go 14 AI, the ARM CPU makes room for a large battery, resulting in outstanding runtime. But what about the performance of the Snapdragon laptop? We take a closer look!https://www.notebookcheck.net/Acer-Swift-Go-14-AI-laptop-review-24-hour-runtime-for-the-MacBook-Air-competitor-with-Snapdragon.928808.0.html
Several benchmarks didn't run. Of those that did it was near bottom of class save for a few.
Can't play any modern game performance wise and even many others incompatible-wise.
It excels in playing a video for one whole day!
So, basically, a portable media player?
Yeah, that and office.
No HDMI port, seriously?
This laptop would have been great if it had touchscreen with pen support.
Then you just install Linux and it transforms to a great tool, long battery, native fast linux apps, design tool, organising tool with handwriting recongition and so much more...
But no touchscreen...
I have something similar, Acer Spin 513 with arm64 Kompanio 1380, touchscreen with pen, 3:2 ratio perfect for photographs review, and it runs natively ChromeOS, Android apps, Linux desktop apps. Fanless with great battery.
The battery life/power consumption data in this review make absolutely no sense:
The power consumption when idle using an external monitor is 9-10 W (no internal display)
The power consumption when idle using the internal display is LOWER at 5-9 W !
So the internal display takes negative power!
Furthermore, with a 75Wh battery, for it to last 24 hours as claimed, it needs to draw an average of 3W (75Wh/24h), which is much lower than both the above power consumption figures.
Clearly the power consumption data (or battery life) is completely wrong, and it's a pity that wasn't spotted by notebookcheck. Could notebookcheck recheck and reissue their data rather than spreading this false data?
Quote from: Jonathan Smith on December 08, 2024, 18:12:48The battery life/power consumption data in this review make absolutely no sense:
The power consumption when idle using an external monitor is 9-10 W (no internal display)
The power consumption when idle using the internal display is LOWER at 5-9 W !
So the internal display takes negative power!
Furthermore, with a 75Wh battery, for it to last 24 hours as claimed, it needs to draw an average of 3W (75Wh/24h), which is much lower than both the above power consumption figures.
Clearly the power consumption data (or battery life) is completely wrong, and it's a pity that wasn't spotted by notebookcheck. Could notebookcheck recheck and reissue their data rather than spreading this false data?
Read up how power conversion works and losses, this was measured from the AC adapter not internal power consumption which is hard to measure when the laptop is plugged in, few machines report it as they only report charging rate, also the figures are not on battery.