> 20% increase on performance is compared to M1 not, M2
Nope.
> The M3 chip has single-core and multi-core scores of about 3,000 and 11,700, respectively, in the Geekbench 6 database. When you compare these scores to those of the M2's single-core and multi-core scores (around 2,600 and 9,700, respectively), the M3 chip is indeed up to 20% faster like Apple claims.
> 400 watts is on a desktop chip where there is no concept of battery life.
Yes, and in exchange for that ridiculous 400 watt power draw, Intel saw negligible performance gains.
> In some areas, the extra clock speeds available on the Core i9-14900K show some benefit, but generally speaking, it won't make much difference in most areas.
Intel only wishes they could hit a 20% gain in exchange for all that increased power draw and heat. As that review noted the best improvement they saw in any of the common benchmarks was just 6%.
I wonder how much thermal throttling is going on with these benchmarks? 400W seems ridiculously difficult to cool. The 13900 was difficult if not impossible to cool for throughput without water cooling.
Intel saw very little gain this year at all in return for a 400 watt power draw under load.
The plain old M3 saw a 20% performance gain along side efficiency gains.
Having a 22 hour battery life is insane and you certainly aren't going to manage that with a 400 watt power draw.