Price parity but not feature parity. I still struggle to find good use-cases for the full sized Pi that both require direct GPIO
and the increased CPU capabilities/storage speeds. For anything that needs GPIO, I find it much easier to just run it on a Zero 2W.
For anything else, where I just need "small computer running Linux to do a thing over USB or the network", the Intel mini-PCs are still a better deal.
1. They are usually upgradable, either in storage, and/or RAM, WiFi, etc depending on which one you buy.
2. They usually have actual M.2 storage without the need for an add-on board.
3. More sensible board and port layouts. I despise the Pi B form factor. Easily the worst thing about my Radxa X4 is the slavish "lets make it Pi B" form factor, which they didn't even manage to do, so any time I use it it's a port squid mess instead of having everything be neatly managable and I don't get to use any of the Pi B form-factor accessories I have anyways.
4. Can run any x86 operating system, and get installed off of a USB. I dual boot my Radxa X4 between Windows and Linux.
5. Typically have faster networking and definitely better video/NPU hardware. Intel QSV is excellent.
6. Power usage stats that are a rounding error up or down from what a Pi 5 could do.
At this point, I'd rather the Pi Foundation really focus on the Pico stuff, I find it far more interesting. The compute modules are also pretty useful when you really want to customize the I/O. As the landscape changed, the full-size Pi B's just seem...left out. Weird boot process, weird form factor, weird Broadcom stuff, weird price/performance ratio, downright hostile power supply choices (5V5A is supported by like two special snowflake supplies, and guess what, the Pi Foundation sells one!), few upsides. Maybe if the mini-PCs prices still increase, and the Pi Foundation can still get away with selling 8GB Pi 5s at $100 or whatever, it'll make more sense.
For anything else, where I just need "small computer running Linux to do a thing over USB or the network", the Intel mini-PCs are still a better deal.
1. They are usually upgradable, either in storage, and/or RAM, WiFi, etc depending on which one you buy.
2. They usually have actual M.2 storage without the need for an add-on board.
3. More sensible board and port layouts. I despise the Pi B form factor. Easily the worst thing about my Radxa X4 is the slavish "lets make it Pi B" form factor, which they didn't even manage to do, so any time I use it it's a port squid mess instead of having everything be neatly managable and I don't get to use any of the Pi B form-factor accessories I have anyways.
4. Can run any x86 operating system, and get installed off of a USB. I dual boot my Radxa X4 between Windows and Linux.
5. Typically have faster networking and definitely better video/NPU hardware. Intel QSV is excellent.
6. Power usage stats that are a rounding error up or down from what a Pi 5 could do.
At this point, I'd rather the Pi Foundation really focus on the Pico stuff, I find it far more interesting. The compute modules are also pretty useful when you really want to customize the I/O. As the landscape changed, the full-size Pi B's just seem...left out. Weird boot process, weird form factor, weird Broadcom stuff, weird price/performance ratio, downright hostile power supply choices (5V5A is supported by like two special snowflake supplies, and guess what, the Pi Foundation sells one!), few upsides. Maybe if the mini-PCs prices still increase, and the Pi Foundation can still get away with selling 8GB Pi 5s at $100 or whatever, it'll make more sense.