Phones have much smaller batteries and you’re not going to usually be playing graphic intensive games on a laptop. Besides, games usually use the GPU which would use up more battery.

Reviews have stated the emulation performance is terrible - akin to Rosetta back in the PPC/Intel transition into OSX.

I read two reviews which stated even 32-bit Chrome’s performance was terrible compared to the native ARM 64-bit Edge, and Photoshop, etc, are borderline unusable.

Stranger still, the Surface Pro X’s battery life has been reported to be on par or poorer than the less expensive Intel-native Pro 7’s - I’m rather confused by Microsoft’s strategy here.

The Surface RT didn’t work.

I acquired a Surface Pro X. I can't compare it to a 7 but battery life is excellent so far.

One thing that my previous Surface Pro 4 did was Connected Standby. It would usually be fine and wake up after an hour asleep just 1 or 2 percent battery down. But then other times I'd go to use it and it'd be at 20%.

So far this X has not betrayed me like that. It's been good for regular tablet use (not continuous) for 10 hour days, easy.

Sorry, my phrasing was terrible, as usual. I know the emulated performance is terrible. My query is about native ARM desktop workloads vs native x86 desktop workloads (if Microsoft's vision comes to fruition) in terms of power consumption. I really can't imagine they'd be different, but I don't know enough about it other than "tech press" comparing phone battery lives to laptops.

I am also quite curious about this. Just like when I see review sites benchmark an iPad versus a surface pro running full windows, I can’t help but be confused as to what anyone really hopes to learn from such an apples to oranges comparison