Go to intc website and listen to CFO Stacey Smith.
The Motorola Razr i leads in performance against the Razr M.
These were the words from Intel CFO.
He said that leading in performance for Intel based phone was not surprising to consumers which was built exactly the same except for processor. But Intel beating Qualcomm based Razr M was a surprise. And it will only get better for Intel in terms of performance and battery life gaps against ARM based products.
blueredmonk: You have been very focused on benchmarks and, to a degree, they are important. However, almost of the reviews on Razr i have been very positive.
When it comes to PCs, there is a general feeling that there is too much performance which is not necessary for most users....the argument goes that Intel is overkill and ARM can replace Intel in PCs.
When it comes to cellphones, the argument is Intel doesn't have enough performance/GPU vis-a-vis ARM. And Intel needs to do a lot more to even make some dent in the market....(of course, Intel will have this higher performance also soon).
There are several points you make and they are valid.
Benchmarking is an important way for us 'geeks' (as someone called me) to evaluate hardware. The reality is you can't trust any vendors numbers (or articles/reviews for that matter) so you have to use benchmarking suites and even then there are serious issues. The best way to benchmark any CPU is to use your own workload:)
The reality is most people buying a phone don't care about performance benchmarks but OEM's do as it's them who design the phones that the chips go into. So, given the same price for two SoC's, and one was more performant which would you choose? Sure, Intel can reduce it's price...
Expanding out the OEM point to include Apple, why would Apple Intel switch to Intel given that it's chip is so 'poor' compared to it's own?