And if it does make a big difference, couldn't they and up with i3s being faster than their own i5s? Which would be a bit embarrassing.
An Intel Core i7-6700K has almost two billion transistors while a GTX 1080 has 7.2 billion transistors.
Of course you may be referring to Intel's integrated GPU's, but they are still very complex. They are not merely number CPU's -- their design is very different.
Which is also why GPUs can be built so large. It's much easier for them to handle defects than for CPUs. The loss of a single core cluster on a GPU isn't nearly as significant to the product's overall performance as the loss of a single core on a CPU, and the amount of transistors you need to turn off to handle that defect is much less.
Not sure though, just guessing.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_nm_process#Commercialization
EDIT:
Actually there are i9 chips with same TDP as i3 [2]. I would think that the i3 still sells more units and is lower cost, so maybe a lower power i3 will be more attractive to OEMs than a lower power i7 or i9.
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Lake_(microprocessor)
Going to be interesting though, the higher tier Apple silicon machines will probably be shipping before any of these i3 chips so intel will likely be playing catch-up for years at least.
I'm guessing M1 ain't cheap
When you compare similarly spec'd machines from other manufacturers then yeah they're usually in the same ballpark numbers. I don't know I'd say Apple is always more expensive or always cheaper when looking at only the high-end price range.
[0] https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/dont-be-so-cheap-fiv...
Apple's cost in manufacturing has always been rooted in quality components and Software Engineering. They just don't build low end models and likely never will. The fact that you can buy a $300 iPad is actually kinda weird for Apple.
My guess is they are taking a relatively simple product to learn how to properly port their more complex products to TSMC's processes.
There are also some high-end Windows laptops using i3s like the $999 Dell XPS 13.
Intel sells chips like this on a sliding scale from i3 to i9.
If Intel made an i3 that compares favorably to the M1, it would be faster and cooler than any other CPU Intel makes, ruining i7 and i9 sales. It would pretty rapidly piss-off their vendors who seek to upsell expensive skus.
I could see a TSMC i3 core in a different name possibly, like Intel Evo Next or something like that and then them selling it as a premium chip for a high profit.