Again, OS optimizations make all the difference. For another example, look at a game console like Xbox 360. All of it's hardware was considered mediocre even when it was first released, and for a while it could outperform computers worth 3x as much. Bulldozer is a good architecture, but nothing is designed for it so it's comparatively a really crappy piece of hardware. I think you bringing up the Beetle vs Ferrari point is interesting, because it supports my point. I'll do you one even better - a Smart Car (smaller and less aerodynamic than a beetle) vs a Ferrari: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5S1NAMnYKM While it likely has a modified engine, my point still stands - optimizations make all the difference. And as I said before, a single CPU architecture can't possibly be good at everything, hence the reason why Bulldozer managed to beat i7 in a couple of tests even though it isn't optimized for anything.

How exactly does that prove his point more than mine? What you said is speculation; what I showed is proof. I too would bet that the Ferrari would likely win in a proper track, but that doesn't change my point because it's about optimizing for your purposes. Nobody in their right mind is going to use ARM for a dedicated F@H server or a corporate mainframe, just as nobody is going to use a Smart Car for a full-length race. ARM isn't designed for number crunching and that's one of the reasons I made my first post - Intel is acting like people care about that on their phones. What I hear more complaints about is how they don't have enough battery life or their phone overheats. What I don't hear about is people complaining that their phone is too slow. Anyways, here's one of the articles (kind of an old one) of ARM vs a few Atom models and the i3: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=samsung_exynos5_dual&num=3 In this particular article, it doesn't beat i3 in anything, although it does come close. I think where I thought the A15 would beat i3 is if a quad-core model were used rather than a dual core. So, I'll admit I was wrong and mistaken about that A15 model beating i3 in any one of those tests. But, I'm sure that if it the A15 were a quad core it'd probably stand on top in at least 1 test.

That is a horrible comparison. That is me taking the A15, adding 50 different features and making it run at 100w and saying it is comparable to a plain jane i3; doesn't work. The bottom line is that mobile CPU's are just catching up to 2006 era CPU's in performance. Which is fine for a phone, but don't let any delusions of grandeur cloud your judgement on the CPU's in comparison to any modern desktop (or laptop) CPU.

There is also a strong manufacturing element which gives Intel an advantage. Simply put Intel is a good 2-3 years ahead of the competition when it comes to process nodes, was always first to make substantial wafer size increases (with 400mm awfully close) and is the only processor company which has full integration between design and manufacturing. This means Intel gets to fine grain the designs down to transistor level something ARM cannot do. It helps that Intel also sits on a large stack of cash and can throw money where it needs to. As regards to ARMs level of performance, lets just say people have some serious misconceptions on this and have no idea what the basic architecture of ARM was designed to do... replace micros (after they realised that they were never going into Apple computers in the 90s).

A cat with rocket skates is faster than a cheeta.