The headline is odd to me given that the article spent so much time comparing it to M5 and still loses considerably to the M5 in single core (199 vs 130).
And it only wins in multi-core simply because it has 16-cores while the M5 base only has 10-cores.
When Apple launches the M5 Pro and/or Ultra this won't be the case.
The vast majority of the PC computing world still uses Windows, which doesn’t run on Macs, and Windows on ARM is still in its infancy. An Intel-based chip that’s on par with Apple Silicon is much desired by the marketplace.
AMD is already serving that segment, and quite successfully, too. I would assume Panther Lake is an improvement for Intel, most notably in the I/O department, but is it really "on par" even with the recent Ryzen variants, let alone Apple Silicon?
And it only wins in multi-core simply because it has 16-cores while the M5 base only has 10-cores.
When Apple launches the M5 Pro and/or Ultra this won't be the case.
14-inch MacBook Pro M5 with 24GB $1,999.
Intel is -35% price, +60% cores, and most importantly given the 4x prices +33% RAM.
And you can run Windows games and Linux on it.