Bicycle chains, not so much.
Why?
https://wccftech.com/intel-officially-launches-12th-gen-alde...
As for your power consumption figures, Apple has a supply agreement over 5nm so don't think you can compare architecture apples to apples yet.
I am joking but just a bit. Intel has long history of dirty tricks when it comes to benchmarks - using liquid nitrogen cooling and not mentioning it, manipulating the compiler to generate slower code on competing CPUs, terms of service forbidding publication of benchmarks, fuzzy use (or not mentioning it at all) of TWP/energy usage.
What they say can only be used as an upper bound of how it actually is. The odds are is that it's much worse and with some strings attached as well.
Intel is playing this PR game where they release / announce or leak info, so people might try and wait for what Intel has to offer. It's super obvious, weak, and disingenuous.
The geekbench benchmark is more CPU focused AFAIK, and the article we are discussing is talking about just how much the astonishing M1(.+) memory access bandwidth is improving their rendering time.
The only result I could find with the memory details for the 12900HK didn’t calculate out what the (overclocked) memory bandwidth was: https://gadgettendency.com/intel-core-i9-12900k-lights-up-wi...
Apple doesn't have to score the absolute highest in performance. For better or worse, they need a credible high-end chip that they can marry with their proprietary OS and computer designs to win customers via a compelling package not some benchmark result.
After the M1*, intel is facing an uphill fight to keep other laptop manufacturers on x86. They may well pull together and come out stronger, but the last 10y haven't been stellar and Apple exposed that weakness.
So, will intel win back some of the performance benchmarks? Sure, no doubt. But will Dell win over Apple customers using the latest intel chips? Let's see...
Well be very interesting to see given Alder Lake is dumping AVX-512 which was one of their core performance strengths against AMD. Albeit at staggering cost in thermals and power.
M1 Max still is the better experience and innovation.
Edit: I know this discussion is partly focused on laptops, but the overall comparison is including server chips so it's clearly not just about laptops. And 60 or 100 watts is child's play in even a tiny desktop.
The 3060 alone is a 60W TGP.
The M1 Max running Cinebench consumes 9W while the 11980HK (previous gen) consumes 45W. Perf/W Is about 3X higher for the M1 Max on CPU alone and I suspect factoring in graphics we’ve got a breakaway here.
Intel will catch up but not today.
I am pretty sure perf/W for the M1 Max chips is excellent, better than the 3060. But saying it performs "on par" with a 3060 isn't really correct.
M1 lovefest won't end just like MacBook lovefest haven't ended all this years when Apple made stuff everyone criticizes now.