Not to take away from their success but their recent progress have been more like them catching up to Intel. It will be interesting to see if they can truly pull ahead though.
Intel is already behind judging by core count in every segment. You can't buy 16-core consumer Intel CPU, you can't buy 64-core workstation or server Intel CPU.
Entirely fair. My usage is on the other end--I wouldn't be familiar with the 15W offerings if I hadn't been tracking Ryzen mobile development or shopping for a new machine for my father.
Depends on how you look at it, with pure horsepower they have passed Intel in performance already, seeing how they can just put 64 cores on a CPU. The single thread gap has also been closing rapidly, and with Zen 3 on the horizon they could pass Intel in this segment, too, especially since Intel has been delaying 10nm forever.
Except most devs don't have any idea of what to do with them, and they end up mostly managing OS processes, containers, GC and JIT background processing, VM instances.
Maybe for 64 that's true but for mainstream usage getting 8 cores in a laptop instead of 4 is a massive gain. That's effectively what has happened in the current laptop lines with AMD having twice the cores with the same power usage and single-thread performance. Here's the comparison of the top-spec AMD and Intel CPUs available in the just released T14s:
If your workload is running a single-app that may be underused but particularly in home-office mode I'm constantly doing VCs, having 4 or 5 browser tabs that are heavy, Office for documents, etc. It doesn't matter if all those are a single thread, I'd be filling up the 8 cores and probably taking advantage of the 16 threads from SMT as well.
All Intel options on the T14s are 4 core. The only other AMD option is still 6 core. The slower AMD part is still twice as fast as the fastest Intel chip: