I'm pointing out that your goalposts are arbitrary. We could compare a NEON vs AVX benchmark if we wanted to watch ARM have a meltdown, but we don't. Ah yes. S

I'm pointing out that your goalposts are arbitrary. We could compare a NEON vs AVX benchmark if we wanted to watch ARM have a meltdown, but we don't. Ah yes. Since Apple Silicon chips perform so much better in single thread than AMD and Intel chips in popular benchmarks like Geekbench 6, Cinebench 2024, and Speedometer, people have started to claim that niche applications accelerated by AVX512 matter a lot more than they really should. I'd hope you're smart enough to know the composite improvements of x86 are greater than the sum of it's IPC uplift. If it's slower in Geekbench 6, and SPEC, then its ST is slower to me. If you want to buy chips based on specific applications such as the need for AVX512, then go for it. Overall ST performance still goes to Apple. Then again, Apple sells SoCs and not standalone CPUs so we should really be factoring all the ways an Apple Silicon chip can accelerate applications. PS. IPC uplift really doesn't mean as much as total ST uplift. You can have a CPU architecture that is great for IPC but can't clock high and vice versa. Only total ST performance matters. Yeah, and their desktops? I like how you said desktops - as if Apple wanted to dominate desktops. Desktops is not Apple's target audience. Yes, they have the Studio and Mac Pro, which they care little about. Quite frankly, an M4 Max is a desktop replacement since its CPU is basically a 9950x and desktop RTX 4070. Comparing ARM benchmarks to x86 ones is literally the exact same problem as Apple's infamous Intel vs PowerISA benchmarks. They run mostly the same applications with a few exceptions. There is nothing wrong with comparing benchmarks between x86 vs ARM.