I’d rather have a chip that scales to high performance when plugged in and lower GPU performance when I’m on say an airplane or in a cafe, then one whose GPU performance is a half decade behind.
Apple is selling super quiet hypermobile performance here, I see them as occupying a niche with no real competition.
The best argument you could make for the MacBook in this regard is for developers who might be working as nomads, and musicians who often lug their machines to their gigs.
But for someone doing heavy 3D, video, or gaming? I just don't see it. The M1 can't even run Tomb Raider above 30 fps. It's a 2 year old game, and isn't even that impressive. A GTX 1080 will yield 2x-3x that performance: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9...
I'm just saying, they got a long way to go before that capture the hardcore gamer or 3D rendering market.
I know a videographer who worked for news wire services who did just this and did his job on a MacBook sometimes on site. Helped him deliver news content faster. I don't think video editing on a MBP directly is as rare as you might assume.
No doubt that Mac's haven't turnee into ideal gaming machines, but I've gamed on ultraportables with a lot less GPU than this, I just never played a game like Tomb Raider.
The answer is no. 26.5W is only for the CPU. If you also need to use GPU then it throttles or consumes more.
Compare it to the previous (Intel) generation that uses 20W idle and 122W under load, while not matching the M1 in neither CPU nor GPU performance.
That being said, RAM and storage is pretty negligible. LPDDR4/X uses around 0.2-0.5w, and around 0.1-0.05w for storage.
There is also no reason to compare to Intel. The competition for Macs aren't older macs - newer macs are always going to be better than older macs. The competition is to what they could have been if they went for AMD, and to other computers of similar form-factors.
In both cases, you're comparing to AMD, not Intel.
Comparing it to a M1 will yield the same results. The lowest TDP i can could find was 65W for a Ryzen 3, which is still long way from M1 in both power consumption and performance.
Compare the 5900HS with the M1, which is a 35W SoC, just like the M1, and much, much faster than any Rzyen 3.
This holds for SoCs or for systems that manage total power equally.
The performance of the M1 is remarkable, but the real killer feature is they managed to push that much performance while reducing power consumption.