This argument is getting very old. Any sources for that first claim?
The multithreaded workloads part is correct, but the argument falls apart when you remember that an average user has hundreds of different processes running in the background, or in other words a workload that can handily take advantage of those cores.
PCMR on Reddit, Intel marketing, and everyone who paid Intel's extreme processor mark-ups because it was "the best money could buy" when they were the biggest game in town and doesn't want to feel like a fool now that they're half the price.
Do you mean the single threaded part or that OP claims that it's what most users desire? If it's about the single threaded performance then OPs claim is true.
In single threaded games this can be even more apparent. But Intel is mainly faster because of a significant clock advantage. Clock for clock the advantage is small.
I'm looking forward to Zen 2 which could allow AMD to close the IPC gap or even get a bit ahead of Intel. Combined with the 7nm process which should allow better clocks it's looking good for AMD.
Question is if AMD uses the high performance process which is touted to allow up to 5 ghz [0] at the cost of increased power usage, or if they use the low power process (which is also more affordable). Since Ryzen, Threadripper and Epyc use the same die probably the latter since power consumption is so important in the data center.
I (and many others) would take a 33% increase in core count over a 10-15% advantage in single core workloads. Even the gaming comparison is most of the time overemphasized. Does it really matter if you are getting 88FPS or 80FPS if your monitor refresh rate is capped at 60FPS?
I feel that most of these attacks at AMD and their CPU-s tend to bend the truth a lot, and that isn't surprising, given the shady tactics that Intel has employed previously.
> I (and many others) would take a 33% increase in core count over a 10-15% advantage in single core workloads. Even the gaming comparison is most of the time overemphasized. Does it really matter if you are getting 88FPS or 80FPS if your monitor refresh rate is capped at 60FPS?
Luckily it seems AMD can probably deliver both with Zen 2. For Epyc the roadmap suggest a 50% increase in core count [0] over Zen 1, and since Ryzen and Threadripper uses the same die as Epyc this will most likely trickle down to Ryzen 3xxx and Threadripper 3xxx.
Depends on your game and monitor I guess. Quite a few people seem to buy ugly 144hz gaming monitors and some games like Warhammer and Far Cry 5 can have ~20 fps difference at the same clocks at 1080p.
> I feel that most of these attacks at AMD and their CPU-s tend to bend the truth a lot, and that isn't surprising, given the shady tactics that Intel has employed previously.
Most of the time the limiting factor is not the CPU but the GPU anyway. The good thing about AMD closing the gap or potentially even overtaking Intel in single threaded performance is that the fanboys, fangirls and corporate shills have one argument less for spreading FUD and suggesting Intel over AMD.
[0] there are even (unlikely) rumors floating around about a 64 core Epyc, but I don't see that happening before 7nm+ on EUV.
> Does it really matter if you are getting 88FPS or 80FPS if your monitor refresh rate is capped at 60FPS?
It does when you want "the best of the best" for gaming on an expensive 144Hz display, and also spend a ton of money on a GPU to handle that. You don't want your single-threaded CPU performance be the bottleneck in your games then - so for a top-of-the-line gaming PC, Intel is still the best choice.
The multithreaded workloads part is correct, but the argument falls apart when you remember that an average user has hundreds of different processes running in the background, or in other words a workload that can handily take advantage of those cores.