If you don't need an all around media/productivity device then why you chose the Surface in the first place and not an iPad or Android tablet with a much larger number of mobile apps and developer support?
Because productivity on this form-factor and performance range in my case ends with office, which is available for RT. Add printer support, multi-monitor support, multi-user support (which goes down to the file-system) and other services like file services, scripting services - essentially everything that Windows offers, which is very limited with Android and iOS. I had not a single use-case where i wanted to install additional desktop apps.
Make no mistake, Windows itself and it's broad range of features made me favour the Surface - but not x86 compatibility.
Oh and of course the was the nice "feature" of beeing practically immune to viruses and trojans as there is no known virus, which runs on Windows for ARM.
Which benchmarks? Given the positive reactions from the Surface 3 announcement I'm inclined to believe that people would give up some performance (and bragging rights) in order to gain full support from the x86 Windows ecosystem. Let the sales speak for themselves a few months from now.
Which Benchmarks? The very same benchmarks you did link from Anandtech.
It does not help if you generalize. Most people were perfectly happy with their Surface RT devices and did not have the need to tap into the x86 ecosystem. You'll get positive reactions from so called "power-users" posting on the boards of course.
Seriously, what kind of applications available for Windows RT would run slow with an Airmont core and a lot better with ARM's latest and greatest stuff?
Most games for instance do not run close to 60fps for instance. There is a huge gap to close regarding performance.
Why choose a slower CPU/GPU if there are faster ones on the market for the same price?
We don't even know how Airmont will stack up (all we have are some Geekbench submissions from ES). The fact that Cherry Trail should be very power-efficient shouldn't be downplayed either, especially if it can provide a similar experience with better battery life.
Airmont is just a tick. Given, the GPU is somewhat faster but it was not the best anyway when it was released.
Regarding power, there was no evidence that an Atom tablet lasts longer than an ARM tablet...and we are talking about times when Intel had the FinFet advantage - which is essentially gone by now.
Example: My Surface 2 for instance plays video for 12-13 hours on medium brightness and that is with the much cursed Cortex A15 on 28nm. My Surface Pro 3 barely manage to reach 7 hours despite bigger battery. I dont have an 22nm Atom device for testing.
They are doing their ecosystem a favour by closing the gap between the regular Surface and the Surface Pro in terms of software and features, that's what part of the community has been asking for years, despite your/my personal preferences.
Again, you are not growing your ecosystem if you limit choice. For performance hungry users looking for a tablet, they now can look elsewhere but not in the Windows ecosystem.
The community you are talking about were most likely already part of the Microsoft ecosystem, because they already had the choice of buying and x86 tablet. As i said, the Surface 3 is now yet another Atom offering.