Also, a just-published database of gaming performance on the M1s confirms that the M1 is not the revolutionary chip that Apple claims it to be once you run it in uncontrolled (aka real-world) use cases.

The M1 struggles to run 4-year old games that modern AMD and Intel chips breeze through. While the M1 appears to have good burst capabilities, its ability to handle extended processing loads for anything that isn't hardcoded into the chip (aka, anything other than video processing) is woefully deficient. Whether that's a function of the CPU design, or poor cooling, or both, is not yet clear.

Underperforms on some metrics.

Summary of article:

> Overall, Apple doesn’t just deliver a viable silicon alternative to AMD and Intel, but actually something that’s well outperforms them both in absolute performance as well as power efficiency.

Just to be clear, we want to ignore the benchmarks where AMD outperforms Apple, and then go on the wording of the summary to misconstrue reality.

Yes, in some benchmarks, the M1 outperforms... in absolute performance but if you only look at that wording, you miss all the cases where the M1 competitors outperform it... in absolute performance. That's important, only because there seems to be a new commonly held belief by the faithful that "no CPUs compete with the M1 in any sense of the word." That's an inaccurate belief.

Remember the original statement I responded to:

> I haven't seen a review where it has underperformed any other comparable device.