[webaholic]

There is no inherent advantage to the ARM architecture other than it being designed recently (64-bit ARM is less than a decade old) whereas x86 has a lot of baggage it has to carry.

There is no proof that these outperform traditional CPUs at all. That is the reason you don't see them being used anywhere other than niche use cases or for cost reasons.

[lowbloodsugar]

>That is the reason you don't see them being used anywhere other than niche use cases or for cost reasons.

By 2017 there were three times as many smartphones than PCs, all running ARM chips.

The top four supercomputers all use RISC, and the fastest uses ARM.

[jfkebwjsbx]

Phones are not built for performance, which is what was asked about.

As for supercomputers, >90% of them are Intel/AMD.

[lowbloodsugar]

Phones are built for performance per watt. Phones are benchmarked. In the context of a discussion on Apple introducing ARM chips into the Macbook line, performance per watt is far more meaningful. For most users, battery life is the issue once minimum performance criteria have been met.

Will there be Razor laptops that last less than an hour on battery that can beat them? Sure.

Will there be people who complain that the Mac isn't fast enough when plugged in? Already happening: the recent Macbook Pros have had complaints about thermal throttling, that obviously slightly larger Dell with a decent fan doesn't have.

But Apple will build performance laptops, using ARM chips, and they will be faster than the equivalent Intel Macbooks if only because they aren't throttled.

[jfkebwjsbx]

The context of the discussion is literally ARM scaling up to desktop performance.

The person you replied to said:

> There is no proof that these outperform traditional CPUs at all.

To which you replied talking about embedded market share and supercomputer which have nothing to do with that.

Since now you mention Apple and MacBooks, which haven't been even mentioned, I think you are answering to the wrong thread/post.