[Scaevolus]

People always focus on the instruction set -- "ARM's fixed length instructions are easy to decode, so it will win in the long run" -- ignoring how decoding is a tiny fraction of a CPU's silicon and power budget. Memory controllers, pipelining, and efficient superscalar instruction dispatch have far more effect, and Intel has a large lead on ARM in these areas.

[ranjithparakkal]

"Memory controllers, pipelining, and efficient superscalar instruction dispatch have far more effect"

Memory controllers(atleast the SOC(chip) level ones) are normally developed by the silicon vendor - like Nvidia, Broadcomm, Qualcomm, Samsung, TI, Freescale etc. Not ARM. And these companies have been working on it for many years. They have had graphics, video acceleration, display, camera-interface IPs all integrated into one SOC for almost a decade now. Intel is infact relatively new to this kind of integration.

In anycase everything including memory controllers, pipelining and superscalar has already been taken into account in this benchmark.

What has been left out is higher clocks and hyperthreading. Two things that ARM doesnt have yet.

[acqq]

Something is wrong Ranjith, you have more "dead" posts, you probably triggered something like "too many posts for a new account."

Hallo admins, Ranjith is the author of the linked article!

[rwmj]

Probably the main one is cost. ARM licenses are cheap, and the many manufacturers work on knife edge profit margins. Intel makes very large profits on high end chips that only it can fab.

On the other hand, Intel has better technology and could cannibalize itself. The future will be interesting.