It's really not. They are comparing it to ancient Intel integrated graphics. It's not the actual competitor in this class.
Some of the recent integrated AMD graphics are modestly capable but are also part of a 35w or higher TDP packages.
Looking beyond this arbitrary test, results like these: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste... are incredible for Rise of the Tomb Raider on those settings with that power consumption.
It should be compared to integrated graphics because that is what is is both competing against and running circles around in performance, and what it is on-par with (better actually) in power consumption.
Also note that it is not correct to compare CPU+GPU power draw in other systems, as in M1 macbooks the power budget is shared between CPU and GPU which leads to throttling.
Also, if you really want to get pedantic, the most powerful integrated graphics are much more powerful than the M1. They are just not ported to laptops, because it makes no sense since you can get much more performance at better power consumptions with dual integrated/discrete GPUs and switching.
The M1 performance is incredibly impressive in relation to the power it takes to do it. This is relevant and meaningful to a user of this type of device and allows fantastic battery life even under heavy load which is unmatched by other devices in its class.
Yes it isn't the most performant, but it is the most efficient and it also isn't a slouch. I think that is impressive. That is all.
There are laptops with discrete GPUs that have similar battery life in those workloads where the M1 gets 20h.
There is no improvement to user experience. This is trying to spin a closed platform that is not compatible with discrete GPUs as somehow a good thing.
Just FYI. The M1 GPU consumes 0-30% less than the Xavier NX series GPUs, which are the next comparable thing, and delivers a third of the performance. It's way behind in every way to Volta or rDNA. A spade should be called a spade - it's a sub-par product due to Apple making closed, non-standard systems, with worse performance than it could have had.
It really sounds like you have an axe to grind against Apple. It's okay to both criticize Apple for certain aspects of it's products at the same time as respecting/praising others.
I think Apple makes great mobile hardware but they also sell aluminum caster wheels for the mac pro that costs $200 more than the price I paid for my iPhone SE 2. This is stupid and makes no rational sense. I have 0 desire to own a traditional mac because the price is absurd compared to more capable products and I don't care about paying the Apple tax to look cool. The M1 Macs are actually a compelling hardware offering.
They are much better than what Macs used to be. That makes them middling. There is no real performance advantage of M1 Macs - least of all in GPU performance - over the current AMD/NVidia standard, and quite a few disadvantages.
What it really is, is Apple making their own processors to be able to lock down their Mac platform really harshly and have total control over it, without offering any performance advantage over their competition, and people spinning it as actually a good thing because Apple had the good sense of making their previous generation of laptops worse than it had to be to make modern hardware feel revolutionary.
Which means they're integrated graphics.
> Also note that it is not correct to compare CPU+GPU power draw in other systems, as in M1 macbooks the power budget is shared between CPU and GPU which leads to throttling.
Just like integrated GPUs?
> it makes no sense since you can get much more performance at better power consumptions with dual integrated/discrete GPUs and switching.
This has not been my experience with hybrid graphics in the slightest.
As for battery life, any 10-15W Ryzen 5000 series processor with discrete graphics mostly disabled will do it.