I wonder how long it will be before this becomes standard. It opens a lot of possibilities, particularly when you (I don't think this is the case for Lakefield) don't have to fab all the cores on the same silicon. It should allow them to really tweak things for max perf or max perf/W, get the best of both worlds.
Thats an interesting point. But what in the world would make me "upgrade" from my SQ1 SoC to this piece of garbage? I shouldnt be so harsh, but i assume that the performance is just not there.
I think garbage is too harsh a description. Its performance is very close to the SQ1, beating it in ST and losing in MT. This isn't meant to be an upgrade to what you have, it really is an upgrade if you have an older WARM device (raises hand) or an core M or Atom-based device already.
Is this performance native or emulated?
https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/2478358
If its native, not bad. If its emulated... that is a GREAT result.
The i5 doesn't do too poorly:
https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1899203
Multithread performance isn't as high, but I'm not sure how much that matters for the use cases you'd expect these tablets/laptops to be used for. If you're going to use this as a web browsing or emailing machine, I doubt you'd notice much of a difference between the two. If you have a piece of x86-64 software you need to run the Intel product is clearly better, but only for compatibility reasons. Performance is a wash.