Great marketing. I wonder the sales difference if they were also selling Macs with current generation AMD Ryzen chips manufactured on a modern TSMC node.
So we can bemoan a missing cpu option but profitwise (ie price*volume-costs) it makes more sense.
It's got nothing to do with the merits of the new architecture vs Intel, it's about Apple not only transitioning, but also consolidating its market edge with yet another moat of smart technology adoption.
What is the relevance of Ryzen here?
Saying the M1 "isn't just an upgrade, but a breakthrough," and supporting that with sales figures that don't really show anything is "great marketing".
Staying on x86 would be nothing more than an incremental update, and would not be noteworthy.
Successfully executing an architecture change of this magnitude and immediately hitting these sales numbers is why this is a headline.
That's just false. AMDs newer U models have TDP and performance per watt at the same level as the M1.
Apple has other advantages with the M1 (like running iOS programs, more optimised for their software and so on), so they still benefit from having their own chips. M1 is great, but it's not magic.
Apple M1 - 10 watts TDP
If the numbers are accurate, then it is close. However, each company measures TDP in different ways. Plus AMD can boost to 30W for short periods of time. Obviously the boost is good when you need it. The big question, how does this affect battery consumption?
That said, AMD's biggest issue is supply. I don't know if it is supply issues from TSMC, or component issues with the OEMs. But it is nearly impossible to buy a 5800u.