The video was fine for someone who doesn't use Apple!!
A better use case test would be an i7 1165G7 and 16gb ram. Or a Dell XPS with 11th gen h processor.
For 10k you could get this laptop for creators from Asus. Look at the bezels on that thing!! lol
OS: Windows 10 Pro CPU: Intel Core i9-9980HK 2.4GHz (Turbo up to 5.0GHz) GPU: NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 GDDR6 24GB Display: 15.6
shop.asus.com
The thing is all these benchmarks showing how fast the cpu and gpu are against Intel and AMD processors are a bit misleading.
First off as many have mentioned the Rosetta 2 emulation should not be used. Native and optimized apps on M1 should only be used for comparison because you better believe they are optimized for Windows!!
Now that the M1/M2/M3 etc. is the only processor Apple is using going forward the native application base should dramatically expand. I mean it seems like people don't remember the shift from Power Pc to Intel. That was a lot worse a transition that M1 has been buy a wide margin! Give it another year or so and most apps will run native and be optimized for M1 which means these processors still have some potential that is yet to be tapped. M2 will be a beast and M3 will destroy. M3 will be on 3nm while M2 will be on 4nm or 5nm but will run at much higher clock speeds. M3 will have higher clock speeds and be on a new process node. I don't see Intel being able to catch up and AMD will not be able too either.
Now if we really want to compare things then lets compare drivers?? Good luck with AMD optimizing their drivers and supporting them over time with optimizations. Software is a big deal and something that should be considered when buying a Windows or Mac. I have a Windows machine and a Linux machine and have been using those systems for many many years. I love the customization and freedom to choose another OS if I desire but there are BIG trade offs.
Also there is a security risk inherent in all Windows PC's due to the nature of updating drivers and firmware which are often not signed or validated.
Also Apple has never been focused one CPU superiority. It was always about tight software integration and optimization of software to work with hardware. That has not changed it is just they have advanced their CPU performance to a point where even PC enthusiasts have to give a look.
The fact that an ARM chip that a few years ago would have been laughed at being considered next to a Desktop x86 cpu in any capacity and now we have ARM chips destroying the competition. It is not so much about raw performance which is really impressive but the efficiency. Chip designs that are efficient/powerful are going to be the future. We are coming to an end of process node advancement soon unless a better cheaper medium than silicon is found. So having a CPU that is more efficient and powerful in a smaller TDP envelope will bring a ton of advantages.
The biggest game changer IMHO is not the raw power of these chips but the fact that you can run them at peak frequency on a battery and have no degradation in performance is HUGE!! The other thing is heat. A X86 processor with 8 cores runs hot and eats wattage and even if they get the process node down to 3nm they will still have an efficiency and heat problem. Heat is a big problem for CPU's and if your chip can run faster and cooler then it won't throttle!! All of these Intel chips will throttle given a heavy enough load and enough time. AMD throttles as well-specially on battery.
So while the Intel/AMD chips may meet or beat the M1 Pro/Max in some applications and work flows that is plugged in and properly cooled. I have heard that the new Alder Lake chips need water cooling to properly keep them running. I doubt any of these benchmarks on Windows PC's are on battery yet go ahead an unplug the Mac and it will not throttle and will keep going for many hours under a heavy sustained load with the same benchmark results. That is amazing and something that is not properly considered in these comparisons.
Now in three years the Razor or Dell XPS will not be running the same as the Mac either because PC makers have an incentive to sell you new stuff as does Apple but PC makers are not responsible for the quality or performance of AMD or Intel drivers over many years. Intel has a much better track record on this front but usually cpu drivers get abandoned after a year or two so the cpu is not as optimized for the hardware as it was when new. So over time your super fast PC degrades faster than it should do to a lack of proper hardware support by multiple vendors.
I bring the latter up because a lot of Windows users can brag their PC performance when new is amazing but test those super fast machines in a year against these same MacBook Pro's and I bet PC users will not have the same experience as Mac users.
So if you are going to do a video comparing the performance and talking about the cost differences we should really look into the long term costs and support. The fact is that a Mac will last longer and run better for it's expected life the a Windows machine because the software is simply better optimized for the hardware on a Mac and now that they are custom designing the CPU there will be even more optimizations and features Apple will be able to integrate into their devices which PC's will not be able to match. Apple is playing a long game while the other companies are just trying to make a profit each quarter.
So while the videos are fun to watch and raw performance is awesome to have in a Mac they really don't show a complete picture and a PC only user wouldn't understand these subtle differences and that is why the video has several problems.
