• Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      5 days ago

      It’s taken this long for Intel to lose gamer trust.

      Intel also have lower power consumption iirc, which is useful for laptops etc.

      AMD have the best server chips: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

      You have to remember that most people aren’t “choosing a CPU” as much as buying a PC. If the majority of pre-build retail PCs have Intel, then the majority of purchases will be Intel.

        • Blackmist@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          That’s under load. At Idle (which is where your average home PC will spend most of it’s time) I think Intel has the edge still.

          It’s certainly a consideration for a battery device. Watching a video reading emails or staring at a spreadsheet will likely have better battery life than a similar spec AMD device.

          We’ve reached a point where most everyday computing tasks can be handled by a cheapo N100 mini PC.

          • 486@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 days ago

            Actually AMDs mobile parts are pretty good at idle power consumption and so are their desktop APUs. Their normal CPUs, which use the chiplet design are rather poor when it comes to idle power consumption. Intel isn’t really any better when compared to the monolithic parts at idle and Intel CPUs have horrible power consumption under load. Their newest CPUs are better when it comes to efficiency than 13th and 14th gen CPU, bus still don’t match or even exceed AMD.

          • daellat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 days ago

            I would have to ask for a source on that. I can’t really find anything comparing many cpus.

            However this video compares top end models on otherwise pretty much identical laptops and amd definitely wins in YouTube playback on battery https://youtu.be/X_I8kPlHJ3M

            But if you’ve got anything to better compare I’m all ears

            • Blackmist@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 days ago

              It may well be the case that they’re similar or even swapped now. I can see that the N100 is pretty low power compared to the newest low end AMD chips, but then the AMD chips are better in terms of what they can do.

              This one reckons they’re pretty similar.

              https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/10evt0z/ryzen_vs_intels_idle_power_consumption_whole/

              This one reckons Intel are better.

              https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32809852

              I doubt there’s much in it either way. Even if AMD are ahead now, laptops don’t get replaced right away, normies replace shit when it fails or is too slow to run whatever shit Google shoehorned into Chrome this year, and the most popular laptops are probably the ones with the lowest sticker price.

              • daellat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 days ago

                Ah yeah, I should have specified I was looking at the laptop side of things more as the person I originally replied to mentioned that power usage is more important there (which is understandable). There appears to be only a handful of laptop chips that I can recognize in that first link and all of them amd but I don’t know the naming scheme of modern intel laptop parts anymore.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      Servers need very high uptime. Also, when something is documented to work a certain way, it had damn well better work as stated.

      Intel had a long reputation of solid engineering. Even when they were losing at both performance and performance per watt, they could still fall back on being steady. The 13th/14th gen degradation problems have shot that argument to hell, and server customers are jumping ship.

    • CriticalMiss@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      Note: I’m not from the US, so in a lot of cases going to a manufacturer’s website and purchasing computers is not an option. Resellers are still the ones in charge here.

      I work IT and when it time for a hardware refresh the reseller we are in contact with said they don’t stock AMD as there’s no demand. Which in a way creates a chicken and egg problem. I asked them if it would be possible to get laptops with AMD chips and the reseller said yes but we have to wait. So we bought 4 Intel machines for the meantime and placed a custom order for ones with AMD chips. The ThinkPads we are buying are significantly cheaper if they come with AMD chips, I was honestly a bit baffled there was no demand. Regardless, we are happy with the purchase and so are the users who claim the computers are relatively cooler than their Intel 8th gen predecessors. It just goes to show that for the most part, enterprise makes a huge chunk of the desktop market share nowadays (as younger generations tend to simply not use a computer and do everything on their phone) and that market just isn’t ready for the transition yet. They’ve been going strong with Intel for about 30-40 years. Weening of that tit is gonna take some time.