Yeah; with all these comparisons, many people in the HN bubble forget how much work (and play) still happens on desktops (not to mention in servers). Power efficiency matters, but raw power still matters too.
The 12900k (desktop) pushes an obscene 8p+8e 16c/24t design. Compare this to M1 Max's 8p+2e 10c/10t. M1's per-core perf lead, if it even exists, won't overcome that.
And yeah, its an obscene miss if one overlooks that the 12900k can draw 250 watts, versus M1 Max's ~50w (?). But Apple sells desktops too; they're loved by the Pros Apple spent years neglecting.
There are rumors that Apple is prepping a "M1 Duo" or "M1 Quad" variant of M1 Max for an upcoming Mac Pro. But the wild part is two-fold: First, a "Duo" variant (16p+4e 20c/20t) still may not match the 12900k, and while a "Quad" variant would surpass it (32p+8e 40c/40t), we'd be talking about 12900k levels of power draw anyway. And arguably a chip like that shouldn't be compared to i9; it should be compared to the Xeons its replacing in the Mac Pro.
Apple's M1 is an obscene chip; but I'm fearful of expectations going forward. Pros were exuberant when it was announced, because it was an indication that Apple has started Caring about them after over a decade of being neglected. But if Apple continues the pattern they started with M1 by waiting a year or more to sieve the iPhone core architecture each year all the way down to a proper high-end part, its not obvious to me that pros are better off. The issues Pros were facing on Apple hardware, up to this point, were really Intel's fault (and Apple's ability to integrate Intel's chips in an effective manner); but AMD forced Intel into high gear, and now to some degree, for pros, it feels like we're re-living the same story again. Apple in-housing their chips does not fix their perpetual de-prioritization of pro workloads; if anything it exasperates it, because now we're at the bottom of the totem pole for Apple's chip production monopoly each year, rather than at least hoping Intel could service us.
The 12900k (desktop) pushes an obscene 8p+8e 16c/24t design. Compare this to M1 Max's 8p+2e 10c/10t. M1's per-core perf lead, if it even exists, won't overcome that.
And yeah, its an obscene miss if one overlooks that the 12900k can draw 250 watts, versus M1 Max's ~50w (?). But Apple sells desktops too; they're loved by the Pros Apple spent years neglecting.
There are rumors that Apple is prepping a "M1 Duo" or "M1 Quad" variant of M1 Max for an upcoming Mac Pro. But the wild part is two-fold: First, a "Duo" variant (16p+4e 20c/20t) still may not match the 12900k, and while a "Quad" variant would surpass it (32p+8e 40c/40t), we'd be talking about 12900k levels of power draw anyway. And arguably a chip like that shouldn't be compared to i9; it should be compared to the Xeons its replacing in the Mac Pro.
Apple's M1 is an obscene chip; but I'm fearful of expectations going forward. Pros were exuberant when it was announced, because it was an indication that Apple has started Caring about them after over a decade of being neglected. But if Apple continues the pattern they started with M1 by waiting a year or more to sieve the iPhone core architecture each year all the way down to a proper high-end part, its not obvious to me that pros are better off. The issues Pros were facing on Apple hardware, up to this point, were really Intel's fault (and Apple's ability to integrate Intel's chips in an effective manner); but AMD forced Intel into high gear, and now to some degree, for pros, it feels like we're re-living the same story again. Apple in-housing their chips does not fix their perpetual de-prioritization of pro workloads; if anything it exasperates it, because now we're at the bottom of the totem pole for Apple's chip production monopoly each year, rather than at least hoping Intel could service us.