There are probably more PowerPC chips sold via laser printers and such than x86 chips. Conversely, 8051 derivates probably outnumber all of these. So what. Meaningless argument.
> Why are x86/64 processors used for most high performance applications then?
Also ARM, the architecture where most cores have between three and four distinct frontends, hardly qualifies as R ISC.
More importantly, ARM has a way to massively reduce its decoding complexity, via AArch64. AArch64 is a separate RISC instruction set, with room explicitly left in the design for dropping 32-bit ARM in the future (32-bit support is optional, though in practice today everyone includes it). ARM is effectively in the process of making a transition to a more RISC-like ISA, unlike Intel which has no realistic way to get there.
If you write down the x86 instruction encoding in octal, it makes a lot more sense:
You forgot ARM, which is a major omission.
> In the end, x86 won, because x86 had the bigger market with more money in it.
It's not the end yet. :) x86's dominance in the future is hardly assured, and in fact if you measure by total number of microprocessors sold, x86 is a small niche--300-400 million sales per year compared to 15 billion ARM chips sold.