[greenknight]

> Their chips are second to none (or perhaps tied for first, depending on who you ask).

> For server marketshare, intel vastly dominates (80%?). For gaming marketshare, Intel still has 60-70% the marketshare.

Marketshare is one thing, but saying they are the best but the marketshare is 60-70% is a totally different metric.

Its saying oh Toyota has the best cars because they ship the most... but they cant be as good as a Lambo / Ferrari because they dont ship the most.

In terms of server cpus, if you are looking at raw performance per socket, intel is no where near amd -- https://www.phoronix.com/review/intel-xeon-platinum-8592/10 . This is based on Emerald Rapids / Bergamo.

In terms of gaming cpus, they definetly are neck and neck with performance.

But yes you are right, Intels chips arent something you would throw away in the trash. They are good chips. They need to stick around. Its just that you cant say marketshare makes them the best.

[jvanderbot]

I didn't say marketshare makes them the best. I said there were lots of metrics, that on any given metric, AMD and Intel trade first place spots frequently, and marketshare implies there's something special still about Intel.

[hedora]

The only metric I could tease out of that where they are close is single core performance on high wattage enthusiast parts.

That’s exactly where the Unix processors were the year before Intel put them out of business.

(Except the old Unix machines also won by large margins on multithreading and Intel isn’t winning there anymore).