As another commenter noted, this is data from the German online shop MindFactory, which could be understood as the German equivalent to NewEgg. MindFactory would probably overrepresent enthusiast and small business customers, and underrepresent your average consumer who would rather buy their laptop from a big box store (MediaMarkt/Saturn) or enterprise customers, who probably buy directly from Dell/Lenovo/HP/Fujitsu.
Also Germans in general are more into alternatives like Firefox, Linux, etcetera as they have a healthy distrust to Big Tech. Even though if AMD is quite big itself it was more liked by a lot of enthousiasts there even when their performance was seriously lagging.
Thanks! Even if this is only the enthusiast crowd, they're typically ahead of the curve, by a year or two, so Intel can't affort to ignore this. At some point the there will be less willingness from Dell/HP/Lenovo/Fujitsu to buy a subpar product.
The hatred towards intels 28x cpus from reviewers seems overblown to me. They are still pretty good chips that beat AMDs single chiplet offerings in cinebench, with decent efficiency. They're kind of just 2nd best at everything, whether thats multicore, single core, efficiency, or gaming... which to me doesn't seem bad, taken as a whole.
I think they meant that compared to specific chips.
AMDs x3D chips are exceptionally good for gaming but are relatively very poor for MT “productivity” stuff (this gen seems to be a lot better at that, though).
13/14th gen also seemingly also had somewhat better price/performance overall than AM5 chips.
I haven't seen much hatred. As you said they are just subpar in every metric, except maybe idle power consumption. Power consumption under load though is far superior on AMDs x3d.
I guess if you look long enough, you'll always find some hate, for example Userbenchmark hates on all AMD CPUs for years and is very biased.
Their latest review says the AMD CPUs are bad, cause nobody needs that much performance.
I've seen a lot of what I would call hatred. "Intel has failed!" "285k is junk!" and so on. Just a bit more harsh and sensational than I think they should be, as opposed to giving a balanced perspective. Like I said they are not the best at any specific thing, but have better efficiency than before, still beat AMD at certain tasks, good memory controllers, and so on. With the right pricing they would be easy to recommend.
With only two relevant brands of PC microprocessors, "second best" means "worst". Intel might be close to AMD, but rational reasons for choosing them appear to be reduced to socket compatibility with the CPU in someone's relatively recent old PC, which should allow an upgrade with the significant cost reduction of keeping the old motherboard and cooling system.
No, what I mean is, 285k beats the 9800x3d at multiprocessing stuff & productivity tasks, but loses to 9950x. It beats the 9950x at gaming but loses to the 9800x3d. It performs slightly worse than 14900k at gaming and some other tasks, and overall price/perf, but does its job much more efficiently. There's no single alternative thats better in every metric.
Yes, the CPUs listed are in the range where customers cannot perform expensive experiments (buying both Intel and AMD to test) and rely on review sites.
Personally, when I first got access to an Epyc, I was underwhelmed by the performance. For numerical performance it was slightly worse than M2 or cheap old Intel processors. I'm now a bit skeptical of reviews.
I listened to a review that said an i7 Thinkpad was cool and quiet with an 8-10 hour battery life. Fans scream at the slightest load, it's 45 degrees constantly and the battery life is 3 hours if you don't touch it and 1 hour if you do. And digging deeper, that's just normal for them. Serves me right for trusting a "real" reviewer.
Should have insisted on a Framework, by the sounds of it, it would actually have at least not worse battery life.
No, creating a throwaway account and making a superfluous claim creates the thread sentiment.
There might be valid comparisons for specific Epyc generations and their Xeon counterparts. But processors are a bit like car engines. Power and torque numbers doesn't tell the whole story.
Datacenter processors are optimized for different scenarios. Use the wrong processor for the wrong job, and you get abysmal performance. We have an AMD system which won't win any speed records, but that thing has enormous number of memory channels and PCIe lanes, so it's basically a semi with an extra long trailer.
Fittingly, that processor lives in a storage cluster and delivers tremendous amount of I/O both in IOPS and throughput. Same processor would look silly in a compute cluster, though.
I'd rather talk in SPEC scores if we're talking about Epyc and Xeon processors, and in TOP500 lists and national supercomputing centers, but you do you.
