The 9600k is an entry level CPU from 3 years ago. Personally I don't think it is surprising that it gets matched by a premium modern CPU. I do think there's something wrong with your desktop however, because in raw benchmarks the difference between an M1 and 9600k is minor - and it should not be a noticeable speed improvement unless something else in your configuration is causing problems.
Similarly, Intel's 1185g7 laptop CPU also goes toe to toe with the 9600k, with comparable performance to the M1 (albeit with worse efficiency). But the efficiency isn't a bother personally as the 1185g7 laptop still lasts all day for my usage. I do have an M1 MBP and have used them side by side, and I'm not really sold yet. Admittedly part of the problem is the locked down hardware and lack of support for Linux - but in the mean time I'm always reaching for the Intel laptop and do not miss the MBP.
> The 9600k is an entry level CPU from 3 years ago.
It's not entry-level. It's the fastest 6-core part from a product line that included 2, 4, 6 and 8-core desktop parts. Every model in that product line that was better than the 9600k could only be described as high-end.
Very much doubt the desktop has a configuration problem as it is set up the same as the laptop.
I think the difference is down to the single core performance edge that the m1 has. In theory multi core benchmarks should dictate the performance you get, but in practice it seems a lot of things, even development tools, depend a lot on single core performance.
Similarly, Intel's 1185g7 laptop CPU also goes toe to toe with the 9600k, with comparable performance to the M1 (albeit with worse efficiency). But the efficiency isn't a bother personally as the 1185g7 laptop still lasts all day for my usage. I do have an M1 MBP and have used them side by side, and I'm not really sold yet. Admittedly part of the problem is the locked down hardware and lack of support for Linux - but in the mean time I'm always reaching for the Intel laptop and do not miss the MBP.