No, no they aren't. If tri-gate were applied to atom, and there was some die shrinking going on, then atom may be similar to ARM power-wise. Here is the first article you should read- particularly the graph, and that this is comparing 32nm (future) atom with 40nm (existing) ARM. Also that it is only 'near' the low end of 'competitive range'; not in first place and certainly not advancing things (remember, intel made these slides).ces wrote:Intel is claiming that they have caught up with ARM in energy usage... using a full fledged CPU.
It has been suggested that the 3d transistors could offer equivalent gains to a die shrink. This is the second article you should read. As you can see in the graph mid way down the page, this (combination of die shrink and tri-gate transitors) offers an 18% speed increase, or reduction of 0.2v, around desktop levels. At lower power/speed levels a 37% speed increase is possible at the same voltage (this would be applicable to atom).
It will take a while for ARM to 'go 3d' but it will also take a while for intel to get atom up to scratch too. Quite frankly it sucked when it was introduced and has pretty much stagnated ever since. Meanwhile ARM chips are advancing rapidly. Quad core are due next year, IIRC. Intel do seem to be waking up to the issue however, with 3 die shrinks planned before 2014 is out.
Also, I think you missed the point of lodestar; we don't need intel for these HTPC systems.. just windows on ARM. ARM chips are already capable of decoding 1080p60. All we need is windows 8 with ARM support (or.. linux.. low volume has tended to keep the price of these things high).
Finally, with regards to GPU power; remember everything will change when the PS4 generation of consoles come out. Stagnation of PC GPU requirements have largely been down to xbox/ps3 abilities and a core of cross platform games.