I think you need to reread my post again because you completely ignored it, didn't even bother to give any meaningful answer and continue to post that same biased article, Intel and battery life cannot and should not be used in the same sentence.
Then tell me, why is it that no smartphone manufacturer bothers to use Intel processors in their devices if Intel supposedly have chips that give superior battery life than ARM?
I did go back and re-read your post incase I missed something. I didn't ignore your post. I'm sorry if you thought I did.
The article basically explains every point you made, other than whether Apple should make an i5 or Bay Trail iPad. I didn't realize you considered the article to be biased. Can you please explain why you think the article is biased?
I already answered your last question. Historically ARM has performed better with more efficient power consumption, and has been cheaper. That is no longer the case. Even if you believe that the article is biased, you can't believe that Intel can't make even more improvements to Bay Trail in order to catch up to ARM.
If Intel can close the gap in performance, battery life, and cost of ARM, (and probably already has), then why would you still need an RT only ARM version for media purposes instead of a x86?
Edited by thomastmc, 02 November 2013 - 05:10.