'To show the naive it's more than just about the fabs...'
Fabs are a sideshow, its great designs that make Intel what it is. AMD once had Fabs but without great designs it could not afford to keep them.
On a more general point the reason you generate animosity here is because you have a trolling style purposely designed to provoke like a subtle version of daysofshred. Everybody here knows that ARMH is artificially pumped by the same #$%$ myths that are keeping INTC down out of all proportion to respective P/Es and they don't need reminding of this great iniquity by you. Nothing wrong in posting relevant comparative ARM vs x86 processor information but really what is the point of generic ARM PRs like this one here which have no INTC implications ? They can be read on the ARMH board.
ARM64 is not going to be a competitor to x86-64 in the server world, it's too underpowered by ARM's own numbers, it will just allow ARM software to handle more than 4 GB application space which it needs to do eventually. So there is no need to trumpet it every other post as if it will make a material difference to INTC because it won't just like everyone told you WinRT would be a bust which you have been trumpeting for years now as a major catalyst for NVDA and ARMH. To disrupt an incumbent processor with a legacy software base you need something like a factor of 2 performance differential, ARM hasn't got that even in performance/power against LV Xeons or Atoms.