You forgot ARM, which is a major omission.
> In the end, x86 won, because x86 had the bigger market with more money in it.
It's not the end yet. :) x86's dominance in the future is hardly assured, and in fact if you measure by total number of microprocessors sold, x86 is a small niche--300-400 million sales per year compared to 15 billion ARM chips sold.
There are probably more PowerPC chips sold via laser printers and such than x86 chips. Conversely, 8051 derivates probably outnumber all of these. So what. Meaningless argument.
> Why are x86/64 processors used for most high performance applications then?
Also ARM, the architecture where most cores have between three and four distinct frontends, hardly qualifies as R ISC.
More importantly, ARM has a way to massively reduce its decoding complexity, via AArch64. AArch64 is a separate RISC instruction set, with room explicitly left in the design for dropping 32-bit ARM in the future (32-bit support is optional, though in practice today everyone includes it). ARM is effectively in the process of making a transition to a more RISC-like ISA, unlike Intel which has no realistic way to get there.
If you write down the x86 instruction encoding in octal, it makes a lot more sense: