https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/apple-m3-cpu...
Single core performance is only useful for artificial benchmarks. And even there Apples lead is less than 2%.
That is nonsense that none of the CPU competitors would agree with. In most applications single core performance matters very much. Not every algorithm can be multi threaded and there is an unavoidable overhead with those that can be multi threaded. Only some parts of some applications can be multi threaded.
For example, a 20 core 500 MHz CPU is much less capable and responsive for real world usage than a 5 core 2 GHz CPU, despite having the same instruction count per cycle.
A 100 core 100 Mhz CPU would take forever to boot up and feel unusably slow.
check e.g those
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/laptop.html
AMD and Intel beat Apple hard in perf and price benchmarks.
I just showed you that Apple is equal or better in terms of single core performance. This thread is a bunch of childish fanboy nonsense, attaching egos to some brand of CPU manufacturer and ignoring actual benchmarks.
Personally I don't care about $20 price differences. On a developer salary who gives a shit about price? I own Apple, Intel, and AMD cpus. They're all good.
So far it is looking OK. In single core, it handily beats a 7900X3D at a fraction of the power draw.
For 1) my fastest iron is i9-13700KS and Apple M2. They are very close. My Zen 3 is great and is notably more power efficient, but I'll evaluate 14700KS-Zen 5-M3 when possible.
ADD: because of winter I'm loving my i9-13700KS (not kidding, my office would be freezing without it), but come summer I'll care about efficiency.
AMD is already significantly faster than M series, and has been so for a long time. Efficiency is the only place Apple still has an advantage