You can blame ARM for the popularity of CUDA. At least x86 had a few passable vector ISA ops like SSE and AVX - the ARM spec only supports the piss-slow NEON in it's stead. Since you're not going to unify vectors and mobile hardware anytime soon, the majority of people are overjoyed to pay for CUDA hardware where GPGPU compute is taken seriously.
There were also attempts like OpenCL, that the industry rejected early-on because they thought they'd never need a CUDA alternative. Nvidia's success is mostly built on the ignorance of their competition - if Nvidia was allowed to buy ARM then they could guarantee the two specs never overlap.
Whole concept sounds like groping in the dark for a Take to me: GPUs (CUDA) are orthogonal to consumer processors (ARM / X86). Maybe we could assume a platonic ideal merged chip, a CPU that acts like a GPU, but there's more differences between those two things than an instruction set for vector ops.
Yeah, that’s true. CUDA is in large part for big HPC servers, where ARM historically wasn’t a player and still isn’t dominant. x86 got clobbered for HPC by CUDA.
There were also attempts like OpenCL, that the industry rejected early-on because they thought they'd never need a CUDA alternative. Nvidia's success is mostly built on the ignorance of their competition - if Nvidia was allowed to buy ARM then they could guarantee the two specs never overlap.