This talking point is outdated. AMD has been shipping 5nm CPUs for a year now. The 3nm parts have just barely dropped in phones due to process delays and poor

This talking point is outdated. AMD has been shipping 5nm CPUs for a year now. The 3nm parts have just barely dropped in phones due to process delays and poor yields (N3B will miss targets and only N3E will meet the original N3 targets a year or 18 months late). So they are a non-factor in the pc/laptop market. Happy to see efficiency numbers (something other than cinebench please) but there is no node deficit anymore. Apple laptops and zen laptops are on even footing now. If there is still an efficiency deficit then the goalposts will have to be moved to something like “os advantage” (but of course Asahi exists) or “designed for different goals!” (yeah no shit, doesn’t mean it’s not more efficient). Again, I am fairly sure that apple creams x86 efficiency in stuff like gcc (chrome compiles) or JVM / JavaScript interpreting (IntelliJ/VS Code) even without “the apple software”, but, everyone treats cinebench like it’s the end-all of efficiency benchmarking. I absolutely know the apple stuff creams x86 by multiples of efficiency (possibly 10x or more) in openFOAM - a Xeon-w 28c (or even an epyc) pulls like, 10x the power for half the performance of a m1 ultra Mac Studio. (And yes, “but that’s bandwidth-limited!” and yes, so are workloads like gcc too! Cinebench doesn’t work like 90% of the core, it doesn’t work cache at all, it doesn’t care about latency. That’s my whole point, treating this one microbenchmark as the sole metric of efficiency is misleading when other workloads don’t work the processor in the same way.) https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/334856-the-apple-m1-ultra-crushes-intel-in-computational-fluid-dynamics-performance https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/334856-the-apple-m1-ultr...