At this point, comparing to Intel's crap makes no sense anyways - the 65W AMD Ryzen 5 5600X blows about the 10900K (which can indeed draw 200+W) in a lot of uses.And while it may be rated at 125W I think you’ll find it’ll pull more like 200-300W at 100% util., if you let it. And as long as you can cool it.
Just as in the mobile space, the real competitor to the M1 - if we're talking perf/watt - is against the Ryzen 4600U/4800U where they are quite close.
In the end, those saying "x86 is dead" would be right if Intel were the only game in town, but Intel already lost the crown to AMD and that's where the comparisons should be made
Where does it lead by 10-20% in multicore performance? Cinebench R23 with the 4800U at 15W (see Anandtech) says they are trailing in multi-core, but GB5 flips it.Comparing to an Intel desktop CPU doesn't make any sense. Desktop CPUs (and the Intel K-Ones especially) are barely tuned for efficiency, and Intel currently can't compete there anyway.
Comparing to an AMD Ryzen CPU with 15W TDP is fair, where the M1 leads by ~10-20% in multicore performance. This makes the M1 a great CPU, but certainly not the miracle some people have hoped for, especially considering the more advanced process node on the M1.
Anyways, if/when Zen 3 APU's come out, it will be interesting to see. They nailed a +19% IPC uplift on the desktop side, and they're still on 7NM.
Honestly, it goes to show you how under the radar AMD is, when everyone talks about the M1 beating Intel - it's AMD that's the real leader on the x86 side of things today.