Sad to see that Phoronix has the worst advertisement experience that you can have on mobile now:
Full page deceptive interscreen, banniers that randomly popup from the top and from the bottom messing up with the layout, mini video showing up totally in the middle of page on top of text with a 1 micrometer sized close button to send you to DoubleClick redirect when you try to close it.
Also with the multiple page article designed to maximize the page view count...
Why does the Tech Press avoid doing any Integrated GPU Accelerated Blender 3D Cycles rendering tests as the Apple M series SOCs support that. And that's faster and uses less power than any Cycles CPU rendering that's slower and more power hungry.
Now the x86 SOCs have really Poor iGPU compute API support and Blender 3D 3.0/later editions have no support for OpenCL as the Blender Foundation decided to drop that OpenCL support long ago where Blender 3D's iGPU/dGPU compute API support is mostly via Nvidia's CUDA or Apple's Metal mostly.
But What About Intel's OneAPI/Level-0 and AMD's ROCm/HIP and the tech press never really looks into why for AMD that ROCm/HIP is not really supported for AMD's Integrated Graphics and I have not seen anyone doing any testing of Intel's OneAPI/Level-0 for any iGPU accelerated Blender 3D Cycles rendering.
Apple's iGPUs on their M series processors are well supported for non gaming graphics applications for the most part but what about the x86 makers iGPUs and Blender 3D's iGPU accelerated cycles rendering should be on a regular roster of testing.
Why is there so much fragmentation now for Integrated Graphics and some Standard iGPU compute API and OpenCL was supposed to be the cross platform answer to that but really long before there was any Apple M series processors OpenCL never really progressed much on Linux and Apple moved on to using Metal while Nvidia has always favored its CUDA Graphics and Compute API.
But the Phoronix Automated test suite has more tests than then ones that Phoronix has chosen to list in the Article so there's usually a link to the remainder of the tests and I'd rather there be some iGPU testing done as that's being ignored for the most part in favor of mostly CPU cores testing as if the iGPUs on the processors do not even exist! And there's quite a bit more FP compute on the makers respective iGPUs that can come in handy for more than just Gaming workloads!
I'll have more integrated graphics tests to come... Unfortunately I am a one-man show and only so much time to juggle everything. Initially focusing on CPU tests since they tend to be most trouble-free and reliable.
They're quite different product lines, serving different markets. The heatsink you'd need to cool something like the 9800X3D would be the size of the Mac mini itself. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K costs roughly the same as the entire M4 mini, has twice as many cores (4x as many threads), and its advertised base power is twice the M4's maximum.
There's nothing wrong with comparing them, but they don't seem to be in the same market.
M4 is Apple's top-of-the-line CPU design atm and this very same CPU is used across all their products and not only Mac Mini's. It's used in MacBook Pro.
Is M4 TDP different in MacBook Pro than what it is in Mac Mini?
I don't think it is entirely pointless but what I think it is pointless is to presumably leave so much performance on the table for a device that does not even run on a battery.
Also with the multiple page article designed to maximize the page view count...