And if you compare thread to thread, who wins?

How much bending did that blogger have to do to get the M1 to lose to Intel? Your comparison methods are laughably faulty, and that's fine since you're not running a tech blog... that blogger, however... just lol. 

Also, are we really dismissing the M1 performance lead because Apple did what Intel couldn't succeed in doing for years? Apple is not gonna sit idly waiting for Intel gets it act together, if Intel's broken promises are anything to go by, I expect the performance to widen, not shrink.  

For those who remain "unimpressed", tough crowd, aren't you?

I can't wait to see what the properly refreshed Macbooks have to offer, personally. I think I am soon going to own a Macbook, 2020 is indeed an odd year. Too bad I don't have an iPhone anymore, makes my S10+ purchase an even bigger disappointment. 

I agree with much of what you said, I also needed emphasize the importance of scalability to Nintendo, and how better ARM SoCs will allow Nintendo to continue making even better handhelds that can turn it up to 11 when in docked mode. In few years, Nintendo won't have to sacrifice the performance of the console mode as much as they did with the original Switch, and continue to be able to offer that Console-experience-on-the-go with the handheld mode. 

Reminds me when ryzen first started to compete and reviewers where comparing same core count chips. Yea, intel still beat them slightly but they forgot to mention the same core count cost twice as much from intel. We are seeing the same shit right now. Sure intel is hot garbage now so beating them is no accomplishment. When compared to AMD we re seeing an over a grand machine competing with mid range. A mid range that day viewed a year ago and is a whole node behind. So no, apples M1 is still not impressing me.

To continue on what I actually wanted to convey yesterday but couldn't because I was using my phone:

- I disagree with the assumption that "SONY/MS" don't care about scalability.

SONY nailed the "console gaming on the go" concept with the VITA, and they had a perfect vision for it, but utterly failed with the execution. The main reason why they failed is the absence of scalability, so both of their platforms suffered from poor output and SONY existed the massively profitable handheld gaming market as a result despite (arguably) being the biggest global gaming brand. Obviously, SONY, and any gaming company, would like to reach out to more gamers, existing the handheld market is not only a lost opportunity, but it also meant that SONY is becoming increasingly irrelevant in Japan. This is NOT a choice SONY made, this is a choice they had to make. No gaming company wants to reach out to less gamers after-all,  it's why SONY is investing more in PC land, which is an area Nintendo can explore once ARM PCs become the norm. 

Scalability also means smaller developers can make games that are acceptable by the handheld gaming market's standards, and not worry much about how home-consoles-only gamers will perceive the lack of high production values.

One can argue that MS approach and push for cloud gaming provides them with even more scalability and power-efficiency, making their plan futuristic and more future proof than Nintendo's, and I probably wouldn't disagree much, but it still leaves Nintendo in a unique position from a software distribution point of view, and allows them to do what SONY couldn't.  

I suppose we can go back and forth on this when it comes to performance to no end, but I am not interested. Especially that my OP didn't really mention anything about performance, I was focusing on the bigger picture which is the fact that Apple is objectively impressive by all measures, which is good news for smartphones, and ARM-equipped machines like tablets and, more importantly, the Switch. 

Apple's transition to ARM is shockingly butter smooth with zero trade offs. Not even the most optimistic fanboy thought this would be possible, especially how the competition has stumbled for years to get anything remotely close to being a product that one can consider buying. This is the best MS had to offer at a starting price of 1100:

An usable mess, and as a result, excitement for ARM-based PCs has been low. Then the M1 happens and the industry is falling in-line to make it a success, you can be unimpressed all you want, just know you're in the minority, as businesses are throwing their hard earned money at ARM now that Apple has cracked the code. 

I do wonder if the developers' response can make Apple shorten their "2 years to only-ARM" to just one year, as I am eager for Apple to gain the freedom to ditch the 86x hardware accelerators they implemented in the M1 and focus purely on making a making an ARM-SoC that's not balanced for 86 compatibility.

I get what you mean that for arm this is a big jump and nobody can disagree with that. But your op did not put arm in a vacuum. You asked if Sony and or MS will jump ship next gen and the fact is that while arm is better now it is still not on the same level as x86 from AMD. Theres still 5-7 years before 10th gen starts, if there even is one as we know it. But consoles start planing as soon as a gen launches. And right now x86 is the only option and we dont know if arm will advance enough in the next 2-3 years for Sony and MS to use it. Since we know there is a time limit into the R&D of the desing of the machine where is even viable to think of a new architecture. And I really dont think arm will be there by that time limit. 

@eva01beserk

I guess what I consider "near future" is different and probably too stretched to most on here, a sign of growing older I suppose....

Not necesarily, though it would make retaining backwards compatibility a massive pain, with only 2 real options:

1) Emulation. Admittedly this is really only theoretical, as it takes a ton of computing power and no matter the increase in computer power in Gen 10 I am not sure if they'll be able to emulate a full PS5/Xbox Series. But given how the Xbox One was able to emulate a 360 for certain games; it is not inconcievable I suppose.

2) Including an AMD x86 processor inside the console for backwards compatibility purposes. This was done by the early models of PS3 if I am not mistaken, which included a full PS2 CPU; as well as by the GBA and DS? This would make backwards compatibility trivial, but it would also increase the prices of next gen consoles.

Option 2 also has the advantage of theoretically increasing performance (as the old PS5/Series X chip would act as a coprocessor), but a the cost of making games hard to program.

Though I am not a computer scientist so this is all from the armchair :P

Re: the Switch 2 not having backwards compatibility, it is worth noting that the Switch was the first Nintendo console in a long time to not have it. Literally every Nintendo handheld has been backwards compatible with its immediate predecessor, and so was the Gamecube->Wii->Wii U trio.

I am confident that the hypothetical Swtich 2 will be backwards compatible.

This only interests me if somehow MS builds a 5 nm fab that is not located in Asia

Like, who died and made TSMC king? If I was Intel, I'd skip 7 nm, tell people it's another delay and then release 5 nm processors at a lower MSRP than every TSamsungMC chip out there.