"Intel caters to the entire market (one the M1 just noticeably shrunk) with myriad integrators, workloads, and users, and each has different concerns and priori

"Intel caters to the entire market (one the M1 just noticeably shrunk) with myriad integrators, workloads, and users, and each has different concerns and priorities making accelerated algorithm blocks useless to some and not-fast-enough for others." Which is why even if Intel does manage to solve their process problems, they are not out of the woods yet. As you point out Apple's per core performance is impressive, but their ability to customize their hardware to optimize very specific compute tasks like the nsobject release example or floating for Javascript will be a lot harder to convince off the self/least common denominator parts like x86 processors have traditionally been. I also think we are at the beginning of seeing the influence of "accelerators" such as the ML and neural engine cores. Accelerators beyond the CPU are nothing new - that's what a graphics card is, after all. What's interesting is these are on the same SOC with the CPU cores. What if Apple decides even for the higher end Mac's to integrate RAM into or closely couple with the SOC? What if they decide on their own memory controller that lets you address all the memory chips at once. What potential could that have for performance? Maybe not enough to offset the cost/complexity. But if it did turn out to be on the right side of the cost/benefit equation now instead of having to convince multiple parties it's a good idea, at worst Apple just has to convince a few internal divisions to work together. That is the long term power I see with Apple Silicon. Not raw specs or Moores Law - but unfettered access to the full Art of the Possible.