[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.