If you like to play with OSs and how they allocate work, it's a very interesting machine.

Also, remember that Intel doesn't have asymmetric multi-core parts right now, but they already announced Lakefield, which has Tremont and Sunny Cove cores on a single package.

In a sense, it's like playing with Intel's future chip, but with an ARM ISA.

x86 can go to lower clock speeds, but does that get them as low on power use? I was under the impression that Intel failed in the mobile space because they couldn't make x86 fit in a phone's power envelope.

I think not that they couldn't but as they say, you don't have be able to outrun the bear, just the guy with you.

Not that they couldn't, just they couldn't beat ARM. And ARM already had a solid footing in the dumb phone space.

I think four things. Two Technical and two business. 0x86's innate power consumption per bit of state change is higher than ARM's. Lack of experience with low power process. No one wants to pay the Intel Tax. And Intel isn't very nice to their customers.

If they spread their investment to compete against AMD in the current x86 niches and with ARM in the low-power spectrum, there won't be enough money to succeed in either.