When it comes to power efficiency, Arm-based CPUs have set the standard for decades. But for pure performance? Accept no substitute. You need a proper x86 chip—at least, that’s how the classic Arm versus x86 CPU contest used to stack up.
In the here and now? It’s not quite so simple. CPUs based in Intel’s x86 instruction set still top the performance charts, at least in the consumer space. But when it comes to the performance per clock cycle of a single CPU core, the very latest Arm chips arguably have the edge.
In fact, Apple now makes Arm CPU cores so powerful that its iPad Pro offers comparable single-threaded performance to a high-end desktop PC processor. Indeed, Apple’s latest Arm-based CPUs are so good, they can beat native x86 processors when running x86 code. That’s ridiculous, and it begs some pretty pressing questions about the long-term viability of x86.
In short, is Arm now proving not only superior when it comes to power efficiency, but equal to or better than x86 as a platform for pure performance? If it is, should and indeed will Arm chips eventually replace x86 in PCs? And does Intel’s new IDM 2.0 strategy that prove even it knows the end is nigh for x86?
FAILURE OF ATOM
If Arm processors do eventually assimilate the PC, replacing Intel’s venerable x86 CPUs, hindsight will reveal that the seeds for x86’s ultimate demise—and possibly Intel’s, too—were sown by the failed Atom project. Atom was the low-power chip that was meant to get x86 into smartphones, and it was an abject failure.
Had Intel managed to turn x86 into a competitive ultra-mobile architecture for smartphones, not only would the company be dramatically richer and more successful, but x86 would also look much more viable for the future. So was the failure of Intel’s move into smartphones a function of x86’s fundamental
