> If ARM can get better at performance faster than Intel can get better at "low power" they can really put a dent into Intels market dominance in the larger com

> If ARM can get better at performance faster than Intel can get better at "low power" they can really put a dent into Intels market dominance in the larger computer space. Even if it remains slightly behind on that metric, ARM is is basically untouchable by Intel in the price/performance metric. Many people, including the author seem to say stuff like "the next Core-M generation will totally beat this anyway!" Except, Core M is nowhere near the price/performance of Cortex A72. That makes Core M uncompetitive in whatever markets the two would have to co-exist (which they don't right now, because Core M is only used in $1,000+ Windows or Mac OS X ultrabooks). Even Atom can't be competitive on price/performance. The real (unsubsidized) gap between the two is somewhere around 2x and has remained that way since Atom's existence. The only way Atom can pretend to be competitive on price in the mobile market is because it's subsidized by Intel while it overcharges for the new Atom-based Celerons and Pentiums (Intel charges for them as much as it used to charge for the Haswell versions, and what it would've charged this year for the Broadwell versions - but those don't exist anymore).