What other sources have 'a quite different story to tell'? Anandtech? The test essentially run by Intel with a few best/worst-case examples? I'm not saying something demonstrated by ARM themselves is going to be impartial either, but these results agree with other stuff I've seen around the web e.g. Phoronix, with the A9 a fair bit ahead of even the desktop Atom for example. Some numbers on the graphs would be nice though, to show they start at zero at least.
TBH they do look about right in terms of percentage though.
Game frame-rates would be more dependant on the GPU than CPU a lot of the time, and the current Atom SoCs have fairly poor GPUs even vs entry level ARM SoCs of smaller die size (the Atom core isn't that small vs Bobcat/Jaguar/ARM cores).
All you have to do is look at the market
TBH. Integrators aren't easy to lie to (you won't win them over with a few bars on a presentation
), they will pick what suits their needs best based on cost/performance/power/etc. The Atom SoC platform has been around for plenty long enough now and we have, what, two or three phones? Versus how many ARM based phones? Or tablets?
IMO it's even more telling considering this is Intel we're talking about - they've frequently held the lion's share of a market despite being behind on performance e.g. Athlon days.