Apple MacBook Pro 14 2023 M3 Pro review - Improved runtimes and better performance

[A]

i9 13905H + RTX 4080 (140W) + 32 GB RAM are comparable in performance to the base M3 with that joke of 8 GB RAM? Ok, lol.

No, your "absolutely random laptop" from first message is. And you can add up RAM no problem, by "base" i mean M3 CPU.
As for i9 one, for CPU somewhere around M3Pro is fair, for GPU - i can't care less about the needs of gamers, I buy laptops for work, PS5 & Switch are a better purchase if you want to game. M3Max will probably be a downgrade by a step from 4080 (depends), M3Pro by two. As it's probably also 8GB VRAM in Intel (even if it's 16Gb VRAM) it's also useless for AI, while 32Gb RAM macbook will be okay.

Totally not saying anything about Intel, but about Apple's M3 not being that magical in efficiency as (some) reviewers and many people praise it to be.

It is not magical, it's just more efficient. The reason is kinda also not magical, smaller instruction set without stupid legacy of 1980s processors (expecting million trolls here who need to run just that one 8086 program), better tech process, homemade software, better engineering (SoC will always be faster than CPU _at least_ due to shorter circuits).

With many laptops yes, with some not really. It's actually switchable in the BIOS for many users, default for most laptops is "max performance" on AC and "best battery" for, well, battery. You can switch both to "max performance" in the BIOS if you want (not with all OEMs but with most). For example, (default is "balanced").

Again, M macbooks don't switch to any kind of low power mode by default on battery. So all these comparisons are "heavily crippled x86 vs full power mac". Just keep that in mind when you are wondering why 140W GPU Intel can last 2.5hrs and macbook just over an hour. There is a setting to increase it more than twofold in MacOS, no worries, but Apple prefers fair numbers here because no one is running 100% load actually.