To give you an idea , the X3 should be able to run Skyrim at low settings and low resolution. I have a stream 7 with a quad core atom at 1.8ghz vs the 1.4 of the x3 but only 1GB of ram , a surface phone would have at least 3. The tablet is able to run skyrim and a host of other games at 640x480 and 800x600. I'm sure its the ram and not the speed of the cpu.
If we could run x86 applications on a surface phone to me it be worth a lot of money esp if I could then use continuum to run work programs on any screen and then relax in gaming mode during... um lunch...
Umm...HIGHLY unlikely. I've never looked into the x3's architecture, and they're pretty vague with the GPU breakdowns in Atom chips (I don't care to dig for the stuff at 4 AM, or in general). Still, the Atom chip in the Stream 7 tablet carries Intel's HD graphics, on whatever level. The X3 has a Mali GPU, for better or worse (I honestly don't know). Then there's the fact that the high-end x3 chip carries 2 GB of slow, low-power RAM.
Skyrim requires a minimum of 2 GB of RAM on PC.
Really, I'm kind of half-reading some stuff Intel's posted to compare the x3 to the X3735G in the Stream 7, and the latter seems like it might be the better chip. The main thing is, I can't find a real way to compare the GPUs, and they'll be a big deal. However, the x3 has half the L2 cache, its memory appears to be clocked slower, and I generally can't bring myself to believe that a low-end (at least, in general observations) SoC would handle
Skyrim in any reasonable way.
You basically said that your Stream 7 barely scrapes by running
Skyrim in a horrible, ugly state, and the graphics chip in the x3 might be worse. It's just too much work to find detailed information on the GPU in either chip--and that's because they're not meant to be studied deeply, particularly for playing desktop games. I might consider it worth playing, like,
Monaco, maybe even the first
Half-Life, but I don't buy it would manage
Skyrim in any meaningful way, were they even to allow it to boot.