Whether you're an Intel fan, an Apple fan, or just anti-Intel (or anti-Apple), I feel like there's not much effort here to see the complete picture. First, yes

Whether you're an Intel fan, an Apple fan, or just anti-Intel (or anti-Apple), I feel like there's not much effort here to see the complete picture. First, yes Apple Silicon M1 (any variety) is, with 100% certainty more efficient than Intel's Alder Lake 12th generation CPUs. And the performance is often better than Intel's best for specific workloads. Second, you can look at just a few benchmarks and pick winners. You can look at maximum power draw and pick losers. Or you can look at a lot of other things. For one, Alder Lake is a big improvement over their previous "10nm" aka "Intel 7" CPUs, both in performance, and in efficiency. But they were coming from a pretty big deficit. Second, Alder Lake seems to be able to draw a lot of power out of the box. But, it also performs almost as well when limited somewhat. For more interesting benchmarks, see how it does limited to 75W[0]. If you want great battery life, and MacOS works for you, there's no reason to join this debate. You win, you get the M1 and all the goodness that comes with it. If you've got a very specific job that requires maximum performance, you really need to see how the performance is on that task, and whether you can afford to trade off on battery life, or just need limited portability. Of course MacWorld is not incentivized to color Intel in the best light, and neither any Mac faithful. But it's also weird to ignore the massive improvements here over Intel's 11th gen. It's technology and engineering, and it's a better showing than we saw out of Intel for quite some time. They spent the early part of the previous decade making tiny improvements to their same 4 core CPUs over and over. Then they spent the second half making mistakes in their process nodes. Alder Lake isn't perfect, but I appreciate it for what it is. [0] https://youtu.be/Ur3Y2vxpTWo?t=345 https://youtu.be/Ur3Y2vxpTWo?t=345