I never make the claim it scale linearly. And I have been very explicit in the node simply because I expect technical reader should know it doesn't scale linearly ( may be I should have wrote it down just in case ) and as I wrote in my another reply you cant even use the TSMC N5 and scale to 5+Ghz. It is not optimised nor tested for that clock speed.
To make the comparison on a low power node, Alderlake using 5W at 3.2Ghz, and scale linearly with GB5 score, it would get a result of 1140. On the same power, M1 is able to score 50% higher. Or 50% increase in IPC.
But that comparison in my view is unfair if not truly misleading. Because there are a lot of assumption involved, from scaling to design and performance characteristics. Where as the previous comparison was done with two actual product based on facts, and you should draw your own conclusion within the context.
It's actually misleading to compare apples and oranges like this.
CPU power efficiency is very non-linear. For example (made up numbers for example), it might require double the power to go from 3GHz to 4GHz and another doubling of power to go from 4GHz to 5GHz.
If you're designing a low-power laptop chip, you take advantage of this fact and operate it at the lower frequencies. You may be able to cut the power consumption by 1/4 and still get 60-70% of the performance.
If you're building a desktop for enthusiasts who are buying big liquid coolers, you go the other direction and push the CPU to the limit. That's what Intel did here.
This factors in at the design stage, too. It's not as simple as taking the same design and scaling it up or down. You need to target your timings around a range of clock speeds and voltages.
Drawing comparisons isn't as simple as dividing Geekbench scores by power consumption because the underlying math is very non-linear.