If they're on PC Game Pass, then they're not Xbox games, they're PC games that happen to also have an Xbox port. Not every Xbox game has a PC port. Halo 5, for example. You can play it on your Xbox console, but not on the ROG XBOX ALLY X, because it's a PC, not an Xbox console.

The term "xbox game" does not appear at all on the page that you linked to (outside of the fine print and navigation), let alone the phrase "Play all your PC and XBOX games."

The closest this thing gets to letting you play Xbox Games is "Stream with Xbox Cloud Gaming (Beta)" which is just super laggy cloud streaming, and "Xbox remote play", which is just streaming it from a local Xbox console.

There have been lots of instances where companies with a "good reputation" changed their spots.

It's a Windows handheld with some tweaks/improvements rom the Xbox team. It doesn't currently play Xbox games. It only plays Windows games.

I'm not sure how it will let me "hold the power of the Xbox experience in [my] hands" if I can't play Xbox games on it.

If we don't preprogram them in advance, then how will kids learn "Math class is tough!"?

I almost wonder if that's actually a dude who was on the flight or someone taking advantage of an opportunity to get in the news.

Seems so unlikely.

Doing a direct comparison between the mobile 2050 (which is Ampere) against the Switch 2's T239 (which is modified Ampere) while only accounting for the differences in core count and theoretical clocks ignores, among other things, the difference in GPU architecture (there was some backporting of features from newer GPU generations), the difference in memory bus width and clockspeed, the differences in power/voltage/temperature curves, the difference in API and OS overhead, the difference in DLSS model (the Switch 2 uses a lighter-weight model), and for that matter even the difference in core config (it's not just "1536 versus 2048", the scaling factor of the CUDA cores is not necessarily the same as the scaling in shader processors, texture mapping units, render output units, RT cores, and tensor cores). There's so much they didn't account for that their comparison is meaningless.

Take the RTX 2050 mobile and RTX 3050 mobile, for example. They are actually both the GA107 die, and both have 2048 CUDA cores. So with the same CUDA count, you should be able to compare them directly only accounting for the clockspeed difference like Geekerwan did, right? But the RTX 3050 mobile has half as many RT cores and a quarter as many tensor cores, but it has 2x the memory bus width, 86% the memory clock, and 1.8x the max TDP. And who knows how the voltage/clockspeed curve or thermal throttling is different. So you can't compare them like this at all!

That's my point. Geekerwan's benchmark relies on the assumption that the *only* thing that affects performance is the CUDA core count and GPU core clockspeed. And that's an invalid assumption.

Selecting office software is not a political statement

That's right, it's not a statement. It's just a position. You either hold the position that it's ok to be dependent on a third party and it's ok to fail if that third party turns against you, or you hold the position that it's not ok and you would prefer to stay up no matter what adversaries want.

It only becomes a statement once you tell someone that security and reliability are among your values. ;-)

Scale isn't the main problem, interoperability is. If you've solved interoperability (i.e. you've got SPF, DKIM, etc working so gmail.com and outlook.com will receive emails sent from your system) then you're in good shape.

Not that running large systems is necessarily easy, but it doesn't have enemies the way interoperability has enemies. Scale is a merely conventional problem that Google and Microsoft aren't making worse for Linux users. Nobody's pushing back, trying to make you fail; your only foe is savage reality.

And man-vs-savage-reality is a pretty nice conflict to be involved in, compared to man-vs-man.

All the previous consoles they're comparing to would have been in the same boat.

Their GPU benchmarks are extremely questionable: they make a lot of assumptions and fail to account for a lot of factors. There are so many such assumptions that they might as well have just made up numbers for where they guessed the performance might be.

Their CPU benchmarks aren't as bad, but they do assume that the A78AE and A78C will have identical clock-for-clock performance, despite the architectural difference (2x4 core clusters versus 1x8 core clusters, which matters for things like cache access) and likely radically different power/thermal limits.

The post at the top of the thread was about "AI". The following posts were about AI. Don't be blinded by the current hype into thinking that;s the whole picture. Just because other developments get less press doesn't mean they aren't happening and aren't important. In the field of biochem, most AI is *related* to LLMs, but is significantly different.

LLMs are not equivalent to AIs, they are a subset. Don't take LLMs as a complete model of the capabilities of AIs.

Yes. I went to check out buying an Apple recently, after an appointment with my ophthalmologist. I wanted a computer that would run reasonably with voice control, as the ads suggested was possible. I decided not to, or at least to wait another year.

Now I have no idea how many people are affected this way, but that is a sign that the deficiencies have caused at least *some* damage to Apple.

The AI to develop drugs is a fantasy, because the data is too corrupt. There already exist AIs that aid in suggesting possibilities, and they will improve, but one that would do the development cycle would require cleaner data (or better robots).