Keep repeating the same thing again and again, and people eventually start believing it. I don't believe Apple processors are "game changing" as the hype warra

Keep repeating the same thing again and again, and people eventually start believing it. I don't believe Apple processors are "game changing" as the hype warrants or that AMD and Intel or DOOMED, because the comparison with AMD and Intel CPU itself is flawed. It's only game changing like the lightening connector of Apple - it was based on existing technology that Apple was bold enough to customise and innovate for its specific needs. Their current processor is the same. People are forgetting that this is not the first time that different CPU architectures are competing with one other! Apple themselves are historical proof of this with the many switches they have made over the last 3+ decade. Apple has made a system-on-chip that is obviously quite different from the current Intel or AMD processors. Moreover their software is finely optimized for it. Kudos to them for doing so - they certainly have been bolder in pushing for these obvious existing innovations that no one was willing to spend some money to do so. While Intel and AMD also offer integrated GPU with some of their CPU, they are nothing like the current spread of ARM SoCs that offer many other units integrated with the CPU - as this article itself points out, Apple's SoC contains a GPU, an image processing unit, a digital signal processing unit, Neural processing unit, video encoder / decoder, a "secure enclave" for encryption / decryption and unified memory (RAM integrated). (Note that this is not a unique innovation as claimed by this article, and some others - many ARM SoCs like these already exist in different variations. In fact, it's what made ARM popular.) Obviously, when a system software or application uses these specific units of an SoC to process specific data, they may be faster than a processor that doesn't have these units. And Intel and AMD processors currently don't have these specific units integrated with their CPU. That is why comparing the Apple SoCs with Intel or AMDs processors and calling them "better" is bullshit to begin with as they aren't the same thing. If Intel and AMD also had these units along with RAM integrated within it, than it would be a reasonably fair comparison. (Assuming all the other hardware and software remain the same, which is quite difficult to do so with Apple computers as they make custom hardware that doesn't easily accept other parts.) Yes, Apple system-on-chips for its desktop PC do appear to give a comparable performance to the current Intel and AMD CPUs (and even surpass it in some specific computing) through macOS. But calling it an AMD or Intel killer however is just illogical and exaggerated marketing - there is nothing that prevents either AMD or Intel to innovate even beyond what Apple has done, and integrate the RAM or build similar SoCs, if the market demands it. I am betting that while Apple will certainly increase their profits and customer base with their own chips, they will also lose many "insignificant" customers like me who have no interest in buying an even less customisable and more closed system from Apple. Intel and AMD CPUs offer me more computing freedom than an Apple Silicon ever will.