Probably been asked before - M1 vs i9

[bsamcash]

PowerPC was cooler than the M1, at least the G4 was..

Not while watching YouTube.

 

[loby]

Put the M1 in Mac Pro tower and it will as cool as ice

Would love to see one in a Mac Pro 2013..

 

[IceStormNG]

M1 is still early gen. So not every software is compatible yet and some might not work at all.

For performance: Depends. Native M1 apps will run quite fast. Rosetta Emulated ones might run good or not. Final cut for example runs like garbage in Rosetta mode. This is required if you use certain plugins that are not M1 native yet. If you don't use plugins and only bare Final Cut, the M1 might be as good or better with certain formats. M1 has hardware acceleration for more video formats than the Intel machines.

Export might be faster or slower. Most people use hardware encoding. Here, the M1 is often faster. Software encoding is probably quite a bit faster on the i9.

Otherwise: i9 runs very hot, M1 not so much.
M1 has less ports, only up to 2 displays, no bootcamp, no x86 virtual machines (yes that can be an issue for some people). Like others here already stated.

 

[Fomalhaut]

M1 has faster single core performance, i9 has faster multi core performance. M1 is vastly more efficient, but i9 has a dedicated graphics card. M1 has less expansion options via ports and external graphics. i9 can run bootcamp.

I think that pretty much covers the major differences.

I have the 8-core i9 in a 2019 MBP16 and the multi-core score in GB5 is less than my M1 Mac Mini.

The advantages of the MBP16 are: slightly faster GPU (I have the AMD 5500M with 8GB VRAM), and the ability to have more RAM (I have 32GB).

Oh, and the ability to run x86 Linux or Windows via Bootcamp or VM if I choose to.

Other than that the M1 is better is nearly every way and about 1/3 the cost. Although my MBP16 was and remains a good machine, it's clearly not very good value these days in terms of "bang for buck", and it's quite likely that we'll see new Apple Silicon MBPs in a month or two.