Someone has these two machines, and claims the x86 feels faster in his work.
You don't own any of the machines but have "made" a comparison by copying data from the internet I assume.
This is like explaining to someone who eats a sweet apple that the internet says the apple isn't sweet.
MacBook Pro, 2TB, 32gb, 3200 EUR
HP G1a, 2TB, 128gb, 3700 EUR
If we don't compare laptops but mini-PCs,
Evo X2, 2TB, 128gb, 2000 EUR,
Mac Mini, 2TB, 32gb, 2200 EUR
Their point is that they’re comparing between SoCs that aren’t in the same class, not that it’s not fast.
They’re not arguing against their subjective experience using it, they’re arguing against the comparison point as an objective metric.
If you’re picking analogies, it’s like saying Audis are faster than Mercedes but comparing an R8 against an A class.
1. Everyone is different, I don't care if a computer is worse on paper if it's better in real
2. I'd say apples and oranges is subjective and depends on what is important to you. If you're interested in Vitamin C, apples to oranges is a valid comparison. My interest in comparing this is for running local coding LLMs - and it is difficult to get great results on 24/32gb of Nvidia VRAM (but by far the fastest option/$ if your model fits into a 5090). For models to work with you often need 128gb of RAM, therefor I'd compare a Mac Studio 128gb (cheapest option from Apple for a 128gb RAM machine) with a 395+ (cheapest (only?) option for x86/Linux). So what is apples to oranges to you, makes sense to many other people.
3. Why would you think a 395+ and an M4 Pro are in "a different class"?
Let me start with your last point because it’s where you’ve misread the original comment and why none of your following arguments seem to make sense to onlookers.
They have a MacBook Pro with an M4, not an M4 Pro. That is a wildly different class of SoC from the 395. Unless the 395 is also capable of running in fanless devices too without issue.
For your first point, yes it does matter if the discussion is about objectively trying to understand why things are faster or not. Subjective opinions are fine, but they belong elsewhere. My grandma finds her Intel celeron fast enough for her work, I’m not getting into an argument with her over whether an i9 is faster for the same reason.
Your second point is equally as subjective, and out of place in a discussion about objectively trying to understand what makes the performance difference.
I didn't "max out" the SSD, I chose an SSD to match the machine of the user.
You: "You're comparing the base M4 to a full fat Strix Halo that costs nearly $4,000."
Then
You: "A little disingenuous to max out on the SSD to make the Apple product look worse."
That's why your post was disingenuous.
If it helps you focus on what the actual discussion, we are comparing maximum CPU and GPU speeds for the dollar. That's it.
Evo X2, 128gb, 2000 EUR
Max Studio, 128gb, 4400 EUR
Great. Here's what you're getting between an M4 Max vs an AMD AI 395+: https://imgur.com/a/yvpEpKF
And of course, the Mac Studio itself is a much more capable box with things like Thunderbolt5, more ports, quieter, etc.
I can see why some people would choose the AMD solution. It runs x86, works well with Linux, can play DirectX games natively, and is much cheaper.
Meanwhile, the M4 Max performs significantly better, more efficient, likely much more quiet, runs macOS, more ports, better build quality, Apple backing and support.
AMD 395+/ Cachyos MT Geekbench 6 25334 - not sure where you get your Geekbench number from for the 395+
You: "If it helps you focus on what the actual discussion, we are comparing maximum CPU and GPU speeds for the dollar."
You: "Mac Studio itself is a much more capable box with things like Thunderbolt5, more ports, quieter"
Source: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/13318696
You: AMD 395+/ Cachyos MT Geekbench 6 25334
Me: https://imgur.com/a/yvpEpKF