I don't get the hype around apple silicon for desktop computers. I sort of understand the power efficiency argument for laptops (although it is often overstated IMO, I could work for >10h straight with my X1 carbon 6 years ago), but for Desktop it is trivial to build a PC that runs significantly faster, with much more upgradability and flexibility for a fraction of the price. So if I want performance on a Linux system why would I choose Apple silicon?
Mac Mini m2 pro with decent ram and storage starts at 2000. According to apple current intel and amd chips are faster but much less efficient (ignoring how to define that for now). If you are the "mini" target customer, 2000 will buy you lots of PC hardware.
The article list an m1 ultra with 128gb of ram, so 6000 or so. Not sure what the target market for this is, but the intersection of "4000 does not cut it" and "I don't need high performance computing, clusters, multiple GPUs, no ECC,no more ram than that" to me seems almost empty.
I must admit though I am biased as I am yet to find a fault or reason for an upgrade in my original M1 machine, and I had dual xeon workstation prior to that.
