I have no gripe with people comparing M1 to top of the line x86 CPUs — it is an interesting and relevant comparison in order to learn about the technology and engineering choices. But I am quite surprised that some people conclude that M1 is "nothing special" because it does't outperform desktop CPUs three times it's size and 6 times it's power consumption...
And even more surprising, it's quite often that I read something like "M1 is a very large chip, Apple is going to have difficulty to scale...". Really folks? M1 is 120mm2, Tiger Lake is 146mm2, Renoir (4800U) is 150mm2. In which world is M1 considered a "large chip"?
I actually agree from an engineering interest to see the data of the hardware and understand why in this case the M1 does what it can do as far as possible without the juicy details from Apple itself. After that, I might compare them myself and learn from that as well.
I actually bought an M1 mac mini to try it out (and use afterwards connected to our TV replacing a 2014 mac mini). It's impressive so far (and I'm used to a MP7,1: so to not feel slow, to not crash the OS for a new architecture, etc: all are significant achievements IMHO)
But seeing other's conclusions based on marketing terminology such as "ultrabook" or "pro" etc. to determine which
apples need to be compared to what
oranges: I call BS on those opinions and related conclusions -whichever way they go-.
Those comparisons are also aiming at convincing people the PC or the MAC is a better choice. I've made my mind up a long time ago: MAC is the only option for me, never again will I buy a wintel device, and given the option that goes for using it too. I'm sure there are those who've picked the other choice: while I think they could do better for themselves, I don't go out onto windows forums and try to troll them. But I do want them to give me the same respect on here.
As for the M1: it's been positioned in the lowest end of the mac lineup by Apple. So anybody not understanding it's the entry level component is just being intentionally unfair in my book.
As to what apple has up their sleeve for the higher end mini, the imac (pro), the higher end MBP, the MP: we can only wait and see. I'm sure that Apple has stuff in their pipeline for a long time already as the lead time on this stuff is not short at all. I'd not even be surprised if they not only have the rest of the product portfolio covered, but also a roadmap and associated pipeline underway in their R&D depts. for the next x years as well. This would also still include multiple options that will not all come out into products just as well.
Without all of that: it would be insane for Tim to go up on stage earlier this year and announce the 2 year transition. Esp. as his surroundings will know very well there is a long development process on these things and as such the risk of committing to such a transition without a solid battleplan and assurances they can do it.
The comparison itself simply doesn't matter: In the end there's certain hardware that is capable of doing certain things: pick the one that meets your needs and fits in your budget. Optimizing makes sense, but if you want macOS or Windows is for most a choice with only one viable option. As only one is meeting their needs.
en.wikipedia.org
