I'm disappointed that the article leads with Intel's performance lead. I've always found it to be meaningless. Their best CPU is over $2500. Their best i7 is over $1000. I use an AMD A4-3300. It's fast enough for my needs and $20. On the other hand, I also have a Bay Trail Atom tablet, and it has fantastic performance for its power usage. The article talks about what a failure Atom has been. I think part of the blame is tech journalism promoting the fastest silicon. It appeals to some psychological desire, but it doesn't make much practical sense. Battery life on mobile and value on the desktop is all I really care about. Why is it such an embarrassment for both AMD's desktop division and Intel's mobile division to be the most efficient?