> 1. ARM is inherently more efficient than x86 CPUs in most tasks
I'm not sure how you're reaching the conclusion of "most tasks" when Cinebench R24 is the only test you used because R23, which doesn't agree, was rejected for hand-wavey nebulous reasons, and nothing else was tested.
R24 is hardly a representative workload of "most tasks" nor is it claiming/trying to be.
Anandtech shows[0] that M3 is massively ahead in integer performance, but slightly behind in float performance on Spec 2017.
Integer workloads are by far the most common, but they tend to not scale to multiple cores very well. Most workloads that scale well across cores also benefit from big FP/SIMD units too.
Put another way, the real issue with R24 is that it makes HX370 look better than it would look in more normal consumer workloads.
It used 33w. Meanwhile the M3 result came from a 2023 MacBook Pro 14-Inch, which certainly has the potential for a TDP of around that. If you can find SPECINT MT numbers w/ power data for an M3 Pro lets see it. Or even just power data for an M3 non-pro in the 14" MBP. A quick search isn't turning up any.
>I'm not sure how you're reaching the conclusion of "most tasks" when Cinebench R24 is the only test you used because R23, which doesn't agree, was rejected for hand-wavey nebulous reasons, and nothing else was tested.
There are no hand-wavey nebulous reasons.
Cinebench R23 uses Intel Embree engine, which is hand optimized for x86 CPUs. That's why x86 CPUs look far better than ARM CPUs in it.
If there is an application that is purely hand optimized for ARM, and then compiled for x86, do you think it's fair to use it to compare the two architectures?
I'm not sure how you're reaching the conclusion of "most tasks" when Cinebench R24 is the only test you used because R23, which doesn't agree, was rejected for hand-wavey nebulous reasons, and nothing else was tested.
R24 is hardly a representative workload of "most tasks" nor is it claiming/trying to be.