At that point one should admit they are biased towards x86 and won't accept any evidence that runs counter to their bias.
Maybe it's time some admit they're biased towards unicorns too.
Yes, Apple's current core has the best PPC money can buy in a human made device. It's done, discussed, set in holy forum stone. However, what does Apple's accomplishment with ARM cores prove about x86 potential? Because the way I see it, so far Apple has proven that faster CPU cores can be built.Their result says little about which ISA is superior,
if any.
As for "discounting" Apple, it's only natural for this to happen as the argument repeatedly comes back to it's origin: extrapolating from a dual-core phone CPU to a many-core HPC silicon as the unicorn of ARM potential. It's almost as if some enthusiastic forumites want everybody to make a bet on the future of computing and those conservative enough to ask for patience and future
product based evidence are labeled naysayers and x86 biased.
And the apex in this argument is this theory that it takes two to make a world class CPU: a genius to design the core and a monkey to follow the manual for the uncore. This is the insulting part, because it is used as proof for ease of scaling in HPC while at the same time ignoring the fact that Apple stands alone at the top of ARM ST performance. It's very very quiet up there, nobody else came even close. They're one of a kind, yet some insist that all ARM designs are on a convergent top performance path while x86 designs... are not.
Personally I'm more confident in the future of ARM than x86, but not because of "genetic" performance potential, but rather due to the business model behind it: it has faster evolution pace due to multiple entities being allowed to iterate on the designs. However, not all signs are encouraging, as multiple phone SoC makers are seemingly abandoning custom R&D for a more centralized and cost effective approach. Different start, but not necessarily a different ending.