[perbu]

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.

[smolder]

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.

[jhasse]

> They're kind of just 2nd best at everything, [...]

Being 2nd best when there's only two choices for x86 CPUs makes them the worst at everything.

[ywvcbk]

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.

[guardian5x]

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.

[smolder]

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.

[HelloNurse]

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.

[smolder]

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.

[ywvcbk]

> relatively recent old PC,

They have a new socket so even if you bought a motherboard a few months ago that wouldn’t work.

[Dalewyn]

>I haven't seen much hatred.

I hate that Intel 16th gen Lunarrow Lake is not Made by Intel, literally no reason to buy from them.

[ChrisRR]

Maybe. The enthusiast market doesn't necessarily represent the average consumer.

Just look at how many products people buy based on cost alone