Snapdragon X Elite in the wild is allegedly slower than iPhone 12 — first benchmarks of Samsung Book4 Edge disappoint

News
By
published

Wait for firmware updates before condemnation

Red reference laptops with Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite.
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

The Snapdragon X Elite is just starting to emerge in the wild, powering Microsoft's Copilot+ PCs, and early reviews are not promising for the future of Windows. Reddit user r/caponica23 shared his review of the Samsung Galaxy Book4 Edge on Monday, and the benchmarks fail to meet the performance of the iPhone 12 mini, released in 2021. 

Running the laptop through its paces on GeekBench and CrystalDiskMark and subjective battery and gaming tests didn't fare well for the Snapdragon X Elite processor. The computer scored 1829 on single-core and 11379 on multi-core while on battery power. Performance barely increased to 1841 points single-core and 11537 multi-score points when plugged in. These numbers are well below Qualcomm's own tests at press events, showing off 2977 single-core points and 15086 multi-core points. Gaming performance was also sub-par; Resident Evil 7: Village resulted in 40-50 FPS at 1080p and with AMD's FSR on performance mode.

It should not be divisive to say that this performance is abysmal for what Qualcomm promised. Angry internet warriors have taken to Qualcomm with pitchforks in hand, rallying against the reports. One X (formally known as Twitter) user highlighted how the Samsung laptop's single-core performance falls below the level of even the iPhone 12 mini, as seen below.

Before you grab your pitchfork and join the mob, there are multiple possible reasons for this disappointing performance. The most obvious is a hardware fluke. The CPU never boosted above 2.52 GHz in the Reddit tests. This is an obvious concern as the Elite X advertises boost clocks up to 4.0 GHz. The above X thread alleges that the Galaxy Book4 Edge physically limited the CPU speeds to keep cooling and battery performance maintainable, but this doesn't line up with other GeekBench scores for the Samsung laptop arriving today with some of the faster scores in the Copilot+ lineup. 

However, multiple GeekBench tests of various Snapdragon X Elite models coming in today also report single-core scores in the 1700s-1800s, well below the iPhone 12 benchmark. Qualcomm's review embargo has not lifted yet, and it is unclear if we will see a firmware update arrive for X Elite before then, boosting the performance of underperforming chips in the wild. 

Tom's Hardware journalists enjoyed their hands-on time with Microsoft's Surface laptops at the Microsoft Build event in May, finding no proof of foul play in Microsoft's demos or benchmarks. Third-party reviewers have also gotten high results in their deeper testing, though Microsoft commissioned the reviews, so take the results with a grain of salt. In-depth day-one reviews haven't come out due to the review embargo, so withhold judgment until then. At the very least, nothing has been so bad as the severe allegations of Qualcomm's benchmark cheating from back in April.

Dallin Grimm
Dallin Grimm
Contributing Writer

Dallin Grimm is a contributing writer for Tom's Hardware. He has been building and breaking computers since 2017, serving as the resident youngster at Tom's. From APUs to RGB, Dallin has a handle on all the latest tech news. 

51 Comments Comment from the forums
  • -Fran-
    Are the products readily available for purchase? If so, why do you (the author) think that waiting will change things enough for this to recoup the performance lost? Is there sufficient evidence this is Firmware/BIOS/Driver issues and not an extreme case of Cherry-picking?

    I'm not in complete disagreement with the "wait" approach, but I honestly think Qualcomm and whomever chose to build with their new SoC should be responsible for this pathetic outcome; specially for early adopters. It's not like Qualcomm is a start up and has no past experience with building things. They don't need the weird nerds jumping in front of the valid criticism going their way.

    Pitchforks and torches at the ready, always.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • ThomasKinsley
    -Fran- said:
    Are the products readily available for purchase? If so, why do you (the author) think that waiting will change things enough for this to recoup the performance lost? Is there sufficient evidence this is Firmware/BIOS/Driver issues and not an extreme case of Cherry-picking?
    ...
    The article says the chip didn't boost from 2.52GHz to 4.0GHz during the test like it should. This should be easily fixed with an update.

    Edit: Just to add, compare the single core scores. (1841 vs what it should've got, 2977). That's approximately a 60% gap, which just so happens to be the same gap between 2.52GHz to 4.0GHz. This is absolutely a boost issue. AFAIK, Qualcomm's mobile chips do not use turbo boosting, so this is new for them. If the chips are ruined and can't turbo boost, then we can pull the pitchforks out, but I am still expecting a patch.
    Reply
  • IBM296
    I always suspected that beating the M3 was going to be a tough job for X-Elite like Qualcomm and Microsoft loved to show-off... But damn, not even being able to beat the M1 is pathetic for Qualcomm.
    Reply
  • JamesJones44
    Interesting the plugged in and unplugged were basically the same. Maybe it's a power management bug keeping it in low power mode?
    Reply
  • JamesJones44
    -Fran- said:
    I'm not in complete disagreement with the "wait" approach, but I honestly think Qualcomm and whomever chose to build with their new SoC should be responsible for this pathetic outcome; specially for early adopters. It's not like Qualcomm is a start up and has no past experience with building things. They don't need the weird nerds jumping in front of the valid criticism going their way.
    The CPU they are releasing is from a startup they purchased though. That is bound to have some hiccups, especially if QComm is rushing it out the door. Assuming any of this holds once the official reviews come out.
    Reply
  • IBM296
    JamesJones44 said:
    Interesting the plugged in and unplugged were basically the same. Maybe it's a power management bug keeping it in low power mode?
    That's the benefit of using ARM. You get same performance both plugged and unplugged.

    Albeit if these rumors are true, then it's a slap in the face for the whole PC Reborn mantra by Microsoft and Qualcomm.
    Reply
  • Amdlova
    Iphone 12 not bad maybe qualcomm catch Apple ultimate product in 2030 lol
    Reply
  • cyrusfox
    Just a friendly reminder that Charlie of semiaccurate infamy has been complaining about Qualcomm questionable business and marketing tactics for the last year. This initial benchmark disparity is validating his incessant criticism
    https://www.semiaccurate.com/2024/04/24/qualcomm-is-cheating-on-their-snapdragon-x-elite-pro-benchmarks/
    Reply
  • sonichedgehog360
    Slow news day? Benchmark amnesia? Doesn’t Tom’s Hardware remember the benchmarks that users literally ran over the last week and at Computex on Snapdragon X Elite disproving? This isn’t hard, folks. See below. Results showing otherwise.

    https://browser.geekbench.com/search?q=Snapdragon+x+elite
    This one cited score is off because of a firmware or similar device specific issue. In light of the other results, any sane person should be lifting their eyebrow. Do people really honestly think Snapdragon would release a product worse than their Snapdragon 8xc Gen 3 from over two years ago?


    Ignore INIYSA in particular. He is an immature bratty teenager or 20-something Apple silicon fanboy who frequently trolls other chip brands and who posts painfully obvious malarkey like this.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    JamesJones44 said:
    The CPU they are releasing is from a startup they purchased though. That is bound to have some hiccups, especially if QComm is rushing it out the door. Assuming any of this holds once the official reviews come out.
    Sorry, I'm not interested in your excuses for them. If you go back and look at what Qualcomm has said about their timeline for shipping products, these Nuvia/Oryon cores have slipped a couple years, at least!

    In terms of performance and efficiency, the one place I'll cut them a little slack vs. Apple is that they're on an older node. These new Snapdragons are on TSMC N4 (not sure which), while Apple's latest iPad (not sure about their phones) is on N3B. Still, that means they have no excuse not to beat at least Apple's M2, which was made on TSMC N5, I'm pretty sure.
    Reply