I still don't understand why people can't get that not all i9s are the same. That's literally what this title is implying ... Which isn't even the article's title ... Maybe someone will edit it so people stop assuming they mean the i9-10900k ...

Also i9 doesn't mean "fast" it just means it is the most expensive of its generation. You will get much closer to M1 performance using a mobile 11th gen i7 than with any i9.

Intel likely intended people to mix up the processors like this because they could easily have marketed a distinction between them.

But the Ryzen 3900X is a desktop processor, right? This is crazy - definitely was not expecting the M1 to be _better_ than the 3900X.

also ... single core performance

m1, like the a* chips are great at single core performance m1, like the a* chips are underwhelming at multi-core performance last gen ryzen was competitive at single core performance, and great at multicore current gen ryzen is great at both

This isn't correct.

A fair number of these benchmarks were multithreaded, and the M1 held its own very well, despite being at a substantial disadvantage (8 threads (only 4 on performance cores) for M1 versus 24 for Ryzen 3900X).

That said, single threaded performance is extremely important, since not everything can be parallelized. Amdahl's Law, eh?

Don't worry though, I'm sure Apple Silicon is coming with many more cores. Amazon's Graviton2 shows how ARM can perform with massive core counts...

As to the current Ryzen (5000 series), it's a great chip and what I'm planning to use in a new build, but it also has a 105W power budget. We'll see what Apple produces for its desktop entries soon enough!

It’s a desktop processor, but also last generation. The latest Ryzens are the 5xxxx series, and the performance improvement is substantial.