Originally Posted by
xandros9 You can look at this a number of ways. ARM has always(?) been more power-efficient than x86 in many use cases so it stands to reason that you can eek out more power-per-watt - like the comparison that Apple made when they switched from PPC to x86.
People can definitely compare different chips because raw transistor/core count is just a trait of the chip.
Comparison of (RISC vs CISC), of (ARM vs x86) and of (M1 vs Qualcomm vs Intel chips) are very different. While RISC vs CISC and ARM vs x86 is more of a theoretical exercise, comparison between chips can be done by benchmark tests and that too if certain conditions are satisfied.
For example, the recently launched Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 chip is more of an advanced mobile chip and should be compared with Apple A series bionic chips because both operate under similar constraints. But it will be incorrect to compare 888 with M1 chips.
When we talk about Intel chips, we have to understand that they follow a top-down approach. They started with high-performance high-power desktop chips and scaled them down to be used on mobile PCs aka laptops. That is their ecosystem - medium laptops to high end workstations. And they guarantee that an app designed for any high-end desktop would run on laptops and vice versa.
Apple and Qualcomm on the other end follow a bottom-up approach. They started with a smartphone chip and scaled it up to fit laptops. Their ecosystem includes low to medium level laptops and desktops. And they guarantee that their apps will run on these ecosystems.
So, you see, there are other non-technical constraints & limitations when it comes to processor design. Hence, I feel that we can use these benchmark tests to compare various Intel chips. We can even use them to compare an Intel with an Apple chip, but that will not give a complete picture!
Having said that, Intel's new Lakefield processor is following a bottom-up approach and can be found in Samsung Book and Lenovo Fold.