A19 has WAY less bandwidth on its 64-bit bus than desktop chips with 128-bit busses . AMD’s strix halo is also slower despite a 256-bit bus.
Pushing this point further, x86 chips are also slower when the entire task fits in cache.
The real observation is how this isn’t some Apple black magic. All three of the big ARM core designers (Apple, ARM, and Qualcomm) are now beating x86 in raw performance and stomping them in performance per watt (and in performance per watt per area).
It’s not just apples deep pockets either. AMD spent more in R&D than ARM’s entire gross profit margin last I checked. Either AMD sucks or x86 has more technical roadblocks than some people like to believe.
Spot on about the memory, even some of the actual M* models don't have all that high of memory bandwidth and still kick ass just as well as the ones that do in this kind of benchmark.
I do feel like x86 has more technical roadblocks, but disagree the amount of investment is not the primary driving factor at this point. I haven't seen designs from ARM itself beat x86 on raw performance yet, and 100% of their funding goes towards this point. E.g. the X925 core certainly doesn't, nor does the top single core Android device on e.g. Geekbench come close to current iOS/PC device scores. They've announced some future shipping stuff like the C1 which is supposed to, but now we're talking marketing claims about upcoming 2026 CPUs vs Zen 5 from 2024. Perf/Watt wise absolutely of course, that ship sailed long ago. Z1/Z2 were admirable attempts in that regard, but still a day late and a dollar short to leading ARM designs.
The other factor to consider is scale-out CPUs with massive DC core counts tend to have mediocre single core performance, and that's what AMD really builds Zen for. Compare to Graviton in the DC and AMD is actually performing really well in both single/multi performance, perf/watt, and perf/dollar. It just doesn't scale down perfectly.
Apple/Qualcomm have certainly dumped more R&D into their cores being low core count beasts, and it shows vs any competition (ARM or x86). The news likes to talk about how many of the Nuvia developers came from working on Apple Silicon, but I think that is a bit oversold - I think it's mostly that those two development programs had a ton of investment targeting this specific use case as the main outcome.
x925 does according to GeekerWan. C1 Ultra is even faster. x86 GB6 results are from the Geekbench website. I searched for the fastest overall scores I could find in the first few pages of GB6 results to steelman as best as possible.
The long and the short is that x86 is WAY behind in every way. The chips are larger, hotter, and slower too. If the rumored A19 Pro in a $500 laptop happens, it's going to absolutely crush the wintel market.
The stuff about Graviton is missing a key element too. Look at the X3 scores below. They are around 30% slower than the x86 competitors. This is what Graviton 4 is using (Neoverse V2 is based on X3). Neoverse V3 was announced almost 2 years ago now and is based on X4 which is a pretty big jump. I'd expect Neoverse V4 in Feb 2026 to be based on either X925 or C1 Ultra. When these newer, faster cores hit the market, they will be beating x86 in cost (the cores are smaller) and power consumption if not peak performance too.
Pushing this point further, x86 chips are also slower when the entire task fits in cache.
The real observation is how this isn’t some Apple black magic. All three of the big ARM core designers (Apple, ARM, and Qualcomm) are now beating x86 in raw performance and stomping them in performance per watt (and in performance per watt per area).
It’s not just apples deep pockets either. AMD spent more in R&D than ARM’s entire gross profit margin last I checked. Either AMD sucks or x86 has more technical roadblocks than some people like to believe.