Where do these numbers come from? I can't find any review of Lenovo Yoga Slim 7 on Anandtech. And they are clearly nonsensical.All your numbers are incorrect. I could post some real numbers (I have access to multiple systems), but instead I will point you to AnandTech: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2687?vs=2633
Here is a review of a NUC with 4800U: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16236/asrock-4x4-box4800u-renoir-nuc-review/11
And here is Lenovo Yoga Slim 7 on notebookcheck: https://www.notebookcheck.net/The-Ryzen-7-4800U-is-an-Absolute-Monster-Lenovo-Yoga-Slim-7-14-Laptop-Review.456068.0.html
Both show total system power at ~ 60W under load. The Mac mini figure on your graph is for the entire machine. For SoC alone see Andrei's tweets, which show that M1 never exceeds 5W on a single core and draws at most 20-25 watts in most demanding benchmarks (this is also consistent with my own testing):
Power consumption of Zen3 cores (20W per core peak): https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-dive-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested/8
Power consumption of Tiger Lake cores (from Andrei), this has also nice graphs comparing it to 4800U: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16084/intel-tiger-lake-review-deep-dive-core-11th-gen/7
In-depth discussion (with active participation from Andrei): https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=195334&curpostid=195334
The conclusion of all this is that the data is there, but can be quite difficult to find it. I am aware of these things because I actively follow up the expert discussions as they happen. But it cannot be expected from everybody.
I know what you mean, but I think the fundamental mechanism is very similar. It's just that x86 CPUs have to be much more aggressive with opportunistic overclocking (or otherwise they would be 30% slower), while Apple can lean back. I mean, Firestorm "normal" clock range is 2.5ghz to 3.2ghz (with peak power consumption of only 5 watts). A premium modern x86 CPU instead runs at 2ghz-5ghz. In the end, it's about how aggressive the frequency curve is. Intel in particular tries to utilize every gap in the thermal envelope it can get, Apple instead puts the ceiling very low. Because they can afford it.I agree on all points except on the concept of turbo boost. I don't think it applies to the M1 since performance cores always run at the same clock speed when under load, so long as the SoC is cooled with a fan.
On intel CPUs, the "boost" clock is rarely used on all cores. It Apple were using turbo boost, we'd see the M1 reach, say, 3.4 GHz for brief amonts of time or when using a single core.
Btw, this is going to be much worse for Alder Lake. I think it's funny that some people praise Intel for fixing their sustained throughput problems. To me, Alder Lake is an admission that Intel simply cannot make a high-performance x86 core that wouldn't suck watts like an old truck engine, so they have to supplement it with cores specialized on throughput.