The reason why the maximum of $x^T M x$ (I think you meant "over the set of $x$'s such that $\|x\|_2 = 1$", because if you don't add that condition your maximum is not defined) is the largest eigenvalue of $M$ is because any real square matrix can be factored as $ M = Q_1^T D Q_2 $ where $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ are orthogonal and $D$ is a diagonal matrix containing the eigenvalues of $A$ on its diagonal. When $M$ is symmetric, we have $Q_1 = Q_2 = Q$, thus $ x^T M x = x^T Q^T D Q x = (Qx)^T D (Qx) $ and since $Q$ is orthogonal, not only is it invertible but it also preserves distances, so that $ \max_{\|x\| = 1} x^T M x = \max_{\| x \| = 1} (Qx)^T D (Qx) = \max_{\|x\| = 1} x^T D x. $ Now I believe you said that you knew the largest eigenvalue of $A$ was this maximum, so I assume you understand how to compute this last maximum to be the biggest eigenvalue of $M$ (it is a simple Lagrange multiplier argument that gives you that extremums are attained where $x$ is an eigenvector of $D$.)
Now if $M$ is not symmetric, none of these things apply because things started to look better when I assumed $Q_1 = Q_2 = Q$. But you can show that $ \|M\|_2 = \sqrt{ \rho(M^T M) } $ where $\rho( M^T M)$ is the spectral norm of $M$, i.e. $\rho(M^TM)$ is the largest eigenvalue (in absolute value) of $M^TM$. When $M$ is symmetric, $M^T = M$ and the spectral norm is just the square of the largest eigenvalue of $M$, so we know it still works. But in general the eigen values of $M^T M$ are not the square of the eigenvalues of $M$ because $M^T$ and $M$ do not have the same eigenvectors if $M$ is not symmetric, so the same arguments don't apply in general.
As an example, take $ M = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 2 \\ 1 & 0 \\ \end{bmatrix}. $ You can readily see that its characteristic polynomial is just $\lambda^2 - 2$, thus that its eigenvalues are $\pm \sqrt 2$. But if you use the above formula, $ M^T M = \begin{bmatrix} 4 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \\ \end{bmatrix}. $ Therefore the largest eigenvalue of $M^T M$ is $4$, hence $\|M \| = 2 > \sqrt 2, -\sqrt 2$. Perhaps that was more convincing.
Hope that helps,