> Intel tried to compete in mobile for a long time and failed even with a better manufacturing process.
They didn't fail because of performance, though, they failed because of app support & lack of a quality radio. The CPU performance & efficiency itself was otherwise fine. It wasn't always chart-topping good, but it wasn't bad either.
Agreed - CPUs (at the end at least) were fine. Also they were probably looking for bigger margins than were available.
General point is that I think that Arm has a small architectural advantage due to lack of cruft but that other factors are usually more important - e.g. the resources and quality of team behind implementation.
They didn't fail because of performance, though, they failed because of app support & lack of a quality radio. The CPU performance & efficiency itself was otherwise fine. It wasn't always chart-topping good, but it wasn't bad either.