> I believe you mean parallelism, not concurrency right? Concurrency is dealing (correctly) with more things at the same time, parallelism is doing more things

> I believe you mean parallelism, not concurrency right? Concurrency is dealing (correctly) with more things at the same time, parallelism is doing more things at the same time. Yes, parallelism makes more sense in this context. I wanted to express it in a more general way because running multiple programs on different cores at the same time I understand as concurrency, which is also made more efficient by parallel performance rather than sequential - IMO the terms are a little bit fuzzy at times, i.e. it's not that easy to convey the ideas behind parallel programming easily such that there is no ambiguity. Edit: About ARM vs. Core M in benchmarks: After looking at it again, apparently the two are still quite far apart, you were right about their performance numbers: [1] [1] http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/09/22/intel-corporations-core-m-significantly-outpaces-a.aspx http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/09/22/intel-corpo...