[tester756]

>I just showed you that Apple is equal or better in terms of single core performance. This thread is a bunch of childish fanboy nonsense, attaching egos to some brand of CPU manufacturer and ignoring actual benchmarks.

So, just because you used one metric, then I shouldnt look at the other metrics?

[xcv123]

You said "perf and price". Benchmarks show they are not beating Apple hard at performance. For price there is no straightforward way to compare since you can't buy standalone Apple CPUs.

[tester756]

>Benchmarks show they are not beating Apple hard at performance

So how should I understand this other ranking from the website that you've provided? https://www.cpubenchmark.net/laptop.html

[xcv123]

M2 Ultra is on the desktop charts.

At that level its competing on efficiency and capped by power consumption. It can't reach 5 GHz with only 80 watts for all cores. Running at 3.5 GHz. The Intel and AMD CPUs need hundreds of watts and reach 5 GHz+. It's a tradeoff for efficiency. Different design decisions. Different tradeoffs. Not exactly competing in the same market segments.

Mac Pro is often used for video editing. The M2 Ultra has hardware acceleration for video encoding/decoding that would need a separate accelerator card on Intel or AMD to match: "M2 Ultra can support up to 22 streams of 8K ProRes 422 video playback"

[xcv123]

Yeah that's a multi-core rating. Apple doesn't lead on that currently, but for some reason that list doesn't include the M2 Ultra which would have their highest multi-core rating.

Apple beats them on single-core ratings. You can see the single-core rating if you click on one of those results.