Also a Tesla Model 3 has a really good power to performance efficiency, but somehow people still like buying luxury and powerful cars.

It's just a metric, but the whole package is still not that awesome (software compatibility above all, but also limited amount of ports, the typical Apple walled garden, etc.)

Software compatibility is quite good on MacOS for all but specific niches, like industrial software or PC gaming. The same criticism could be said for Windows or Linux, which is why things like Wine and WSL exist.

There's no walled garden on MacOS.

No absolutely, in fact I can develop and deploy apps to iPhone and iPads from Linux and Windows, without owning a Mac.

That's almost certainly not true. E.g.,

https://www.embedded.com/risc-v-core-said-to-outperform-appl...

What laptops are shipping with this and are outperforming the Apple processors in real life?

I'm not sure I was just responding to a claim about a CPU's performance per watt.

The quotes in that page have some of the most spectacularly misleading statistics I’ve seen for a while. Might as well point out that for telling the time looking at my watch is more energy efficient than looking at the clock in my car dashboard (and then calculating energy efficiency while comparing power consumption of a car and a watch)

> is said to

To most consumers, this will only be interesting if it's shipping in laptops.

Is this a shipping product?

Not sure. It's likely a lot of small low power CPUs can beat the likes of M1 on perf/watt tasks though. That one was just the first hit I got.