Intel has already proven with Medfield that x86 can scale down to the same power requirements as ARM, with better performance thanks to intels fabrication prowess.
And with binary translation... Can also run ARM based apps too.
However outside of a few select tablets/phones like the Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 10.1, Intel has had little success.
As for 64bit specifically, it's not really needed, sure Phones are not far away from pushing past the 4Gb of Ram barrier, but 32bit can extend pass that limit, the extra transisters spent on 64bit could have been spent on better cores.
Where the real advantage of having 64bit ARM cores is mostly in the server space, which is a *massive* and lucrative market, one that Intel will try to continue to control by throwing it's latest Atom cores at.
I can't wait for AMD to finally ditch the slow and power hungry FX based processors, Intel's quad-cores are faster than AMD's Octo-cores.
|
Define "Quad-core." Now that games and apps are utilizing 8 cores fully this really isn't true. The FX-6300 is just a hair below the weaker i5's, and the FX-8350 is in between an i5 and i7. Yeah, the i7 beats the FX-83xx, but it does so by using hyper threading so I wouldn't necessarily call it just a "Quad-core."
This come from someone who has owned/used an i5, i7, and 8320.
