There is so much that goes into comparing microarchitectures that it's impossible to determine relative performance without know more details. Specifically, the workload and compiler can completely deform the functionality of any computation engine. Modern CPUs have so many gotchas that if a workload or compiler does something the wrong way it can completely tank performance. We can't say for sure that anything like that is happening here, but it possible that Cyclone may perform better than Haswell in some specific use cases.
The important question is how do they perform when using a mature software stack that does useful work. Anything else is purely academic, and nearly completely useless unless we have ALL of the important details in hand to analyze microarchitecural oddities. Is the code and/or dissassembly of the sub-benchmarks used in this Geekbench version available for analysis? That would be interesting to see.
ARM likes to use benchmarks like Geekbench to show how close their performance is to Intel when doing something like simple math in a loop, or some highly optimized single threaded encryption algorithm. This is something that their microarchitecture is designed to do, and indeed it does it very well (even compared to huge x86 cores), but it gives the false impression that you have a central processing unit that can do what has taken AMD and Intel 20 years to achieve. However, once you want to do something real that requires multiple cores running different software that has less-than perfect optimization (coded by some intern), swapping in and out threads every couple microseconds, moving data from cache to cache, core to core, getting stuck at the back of some buffer in the sideband fabic that's being held up by an interrupt that is waiting for other interrupts and data flying is from all sources of IO through USB, PCIe, SATA, and whatever other orifices that make up the device, and finally you understand that all of that purely academic research you have doing counts for nothing and you are left with a steaming pile a garbage that costs $15 and can do simple math really well.
This is the exact reason why until recently ARM has been considered a second class citizen that is reserved for microcontrollers with extremely tight, highly optimized hand written assembly (or maybe something fancy like C), and this is the exact reason why a lot of us have a hard time being impressed by posting some good benchmark scores. Let me take a snapshot of my desktop at 11pm on a Saturday night and see how well Cyclone handles Firefox with 20 tabs, excel, word, Battlefield 3, antivirus, skype and 50 other processes running on top of Windows 8. But at least it can do SHA encryption really fast.
The impressive part about modern x86 CPUs (AMD and Intel) isn't that they have a "really high IPC". It's that they can handle the chaos that is the Desktop OS with grace, and also service a whole range of workloads from handsets to servers and perform admirably. If all you care about is SHA256 encryption or Sobel edge detection then I can make you an ASIC that will blow your socks off.
Moral of the Story: GPUs and other various Co-Processors on an SoC do all of these operations in Geekbench way better than an GPCPU. The CPU is never going to do any of the things on this list for any significant amount of time, so why the do we even care?
Important things: Multitasking, Locking, synchronization and coherency behavior, Interrupts, IO and Memory Bandwidth and Latency, Caching, Branch Prediction and stalls.
Not Important things: Mathematical calculations that a GPU or other co-processors will do better.
Obviously it all depends on the usecase, and in many cases an ARM microprocessor is the best choice, but this post was a response to "ARM can replace Haswell. Source: These Geekbench scores"