This is definitely not true. M3 is 2x - 3x more efficient than Lunar Lake on the same N3B node.

I don't think that's true. M3 has much better idle/near-idle power draw, but actual performance per watt when doing things is pretty close.

No, it’s the other way around. Intel has generally caught up in idle power draw but is still severely behind in performance per watt.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Lunar-Lake-CPU-analysis-...

https://youtu.be/ymoiWv9BF7Q

The last I checked, there low wattage AMD and high wattage Apple had similar performance and wattage, so AMD was the right choice for raw performance, and Apple won for portable devices.

Intel was losing badly to one or the other at all TDPs. I don’t get the impression that’s changed much. (Even if it has, I can’t remember the last time I encountered a non-xeon intel machine with working hardware and drivers (for any OS, and I tried Windows, Linux and macs).

AMD does not win over Apple for raw portal performance. AMD does give you a lot of MT performance for a decent price. You have to buy an M3 Pro to match an AMD HX 370. However, you’re sacrificing battery life, quietness, portability, and ST performance with AMD.

Remember that the latest Intel chips are a TSMC process node now, that's a pretty big change.

Have you seen Lunars iGPU?

Yes, M3 is still 2-3x more efficient than Lunar Lake’s GPU as long as it’s not games that were more optimized for x86 and or DirectX. For example, M3 generally wins in compute with a lot less power needed.

Src?

There is no theoretical reason that is the case. These systems would be transpiling, not interpreting.