There's no fundamental difference between risc, arm and x86. It looks like when all else is equal (fab, die size) the chips tend to have about the same performance characteristics - so why mess with what's working?
As Apple and MS have shown, from a software point of view the difference is not that important. They both have ARM and x86 products. In Apple's case, the same software actually supports both. They literally just stuff two binaries in their executables. Their OS runs on both X86 and ARM (for now). That's how they seamlessly transitioned to their own chips over the course of the last five years. Users barely notice the difference.
What they do notice is vastly improved performance, longer battery life, the fact that the CPU fan doesn't come on if you just move your mouse, etc. That's because there are some big differences at the hardware level that Intel has so far not addressed. Which is why ARM for Windows laptops is a thing multiple manufacturers are trying to get off the ground.
I have an M4 Max laptop. I don't think Intel currently ships something that comes even close to this thing. I don't think anybody does. And clearly they all want to. AMD comes decently close. Nvidia is of course king of GPUs and perpetually rumored to get into the (ARM based) system on a chip market. But their attempt to buy ARM failed and it seems they are more focused on AI. Either way, they haven't really launched much of interest yet. AMD actually cornered the market for game consoles. Steam Deck, XBox, and Playstation have in common that they get their chips from AMD (not Intel or Nvidia). But most Windows laptops continue to kind of suck in terms of energy usage and performance per watt.
Fundamental difference when it comes to performance.
In terms of implementations, obviously arch matters a lot in terms of the "established" software ecosystems, but if you're writing some software and need to hit a performance target no arch has a particular advantage solely because of its architectural implementation.
That article is nonsense, even if it's up to the implementation, not ISA.
Apple's M4 Max owns AMDs top consumer CPU (Ryzen 9 9900X3D) in both, single and multi-core workloads, while consuming a fraction of power that the AMD chip does.
The year-on-year performance improvements on Apple's ARM chips are just insane. If it really was so simple, then why haven't Intel and AMD pulled their heads out of their asses in the last 5 years and re-designed their cores from the ground up?
CPU design and manufacturing is modern equivalent of 1960s/1970s rocket science, it is literally one of the hardest things we (humanity) currently engineer.
You think if AMD and Intel switched to ARM ISA then their processors would magically have significantly better performance characteristics?
>then why haven't Intel and AMD pulled their heads out of their asses in the last 5 years and re-designed their cores from the ground up?
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy... Lunar Lake?
>Apple's M4 Max owns AMDs top consumer CPU (Ryzen 9 9900X3D) in both, single and multi-core workloads
According to who? And which workloads because there's countless of them and in some M4 are better and in some other AMD/Intel are better
