AMD Ryzen CPUs continue to crush Intel processors on Amazon best-seller list

[HardReset]

Apple and ARM?

Both use ARM big.LITTLE. Main difference between big.LITTLE, AMD c-cores (whatever that architecture is named, heterogenous? HSA?) and Intel Hybrid is that Intel Hybrid combines two different CPU architectures that don't support same instruction sets. That is probably stupidest design choice ever seen on any CPU so far. No wonder Intel decided to disable instructions on P-core to mitigate that. In other words, Intel CPU designers either were braindead morons or whole Hybrid thing was pure panic solution. Pick your poison.

 

[bandit8623]

Intel is only company that has gone hybrid. Other companies put bih and smaller cores. Intel is only company stupid enough to combine consumer CPUs with different instruction set on same package.
Thread director is main reason for VM problems. And btw that is Hardware solution that exists on chip.

AMD solution has been available for long ttime. Unlike Intel, CPUs have exactly same instuction set support and identical architecture from software's POV.

Again, Intels hybrid is to combine two different ISA cores and then disabling some that are not supported on both CPUs. Intel is only one with stupid solution like that. Also including hardware "scheduler" on chip that works like trash is simply funny.

Intel is ahead on some single core benchmarks but only because software used is very old. See, AMD Zen5 can handle AVX512 without major problems and therefore AMD is miles faster on single thread software. https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-zen5-avx-512-9950x

No Intel because no AVX512 support.

Intel has already admitted Raptor Lake durability problems. Even with stick settings.

Windows 11 is more optimized for multi core than hybrid. Again, it rarely makes sense to optimize hybrid instead multi core.

Like already described, using VM with hybrid is simply pain unless admin rights or similar are granted. On work enviroment rarely. E-cores are simply panic solution and disaster on every front
Again Intel is only company going hybrid, tells more than enough?

you keep saying consumer cpus but then say I cant run all my vms how I want blah blah... intel sells xeon processors that would fit your task much better. as for a regular desktop user and gamer the big core little core works just fine... you are an oddball top 5% er that is trying to do heavy VM stuff on a desktop cpu.

9700x is slower than the 265k and costs 100$ more as well. and its not just benchmarks

 

[HardReset]

you keep saying consumer cpus but then say I cant run all my vms how I want blah blah... intel sells xeon processors that would fit your task much better. as for a regular desktop user and gamer the big core little core works just fine... you are an oddball top 5% er that is trying to do heavy VM stuff on a desktop cpu.

Why should I or anyone using VMs on work should invest on Xeon when Ryzen does job just fine? VM usage was just one example where Hybrid works like trash. For some reason Intel implemented Legacy Game Compatibility Mode, using that you can disable E-cores pressing scroll lock. If hybrid works just fine for home users, why offer that kind of "solution" Perhaps because solutions like Denuvo copy protection didn't work when E-cores were active.

This post is written inside virtual machine FYI.

 

[bandit8623]

Why should I or anyone using VMs on work should invest on Xeon when Ryzen does job just fine? VM usage was just one example where Hybrid works like trash. For some reason Intel implemented Legacy Game Compatibility Mode, using that you can disable E-cores pressing scroll lock. If hybrid works just fine for home users, why offer that kind of "solution" Perhaps because solutions like Denuvo copy protection didn't work when E-cores were active.

This post is written inside virtual machine FYI.

invest? u can get a used xeon thats has 48 threads for under 120$ or an epyc for that matter

 

[HardReset]

invest? u can get a used xeon thats has 48 threads for under 200$ or an epyc for that matter

1. used, not new 2. motherboards usually are very expensive and/or have limited expansion capacity 3. usually requires expensive memory too 4. server CPUs rarely have both at least 16 cores AND high turbo clock speed. AMD Epycs for AM5 is rare exception.

Because server CPUs usually have high core count combined with low clocks, they are actually pretty slow for local VM usage when doing something else too.

 

[bandit8623]

1. used, not new 2. motherboards usually are very expensive and/or have limited expansion capacity 3. usually requires expensive memory too 4. server CPUs rarely have both at least 16 cores AND high turbo clock speed. AMD Epycs for AM5 is rare exception.

Because server CPUs usually have high core count combined with low clocks, they are actually pretty slow for local VM usage when doing something else too.

90% of these points are incorrect only one that you are correct on are turbos being lower and lower clock speeds.. but they make server cpus with lower core counts and higher boost speeds. you are just here to complain about intel e cores it seems.

used server boards are cheaper than new desktop boards.... look at supermicro. also then you get bmc for remote management.

Its fine intel wont work for you, but again you are probably a 5% usage case. 95% of all other users intel p and e work fine.

Im going to say I bet before10 years passes amd will also drop SMT.

also this seems more like a hypervisor issue to me. what are you using for hypervisor?

 

[HardReset]

90% of these points are incorrect only one that you are correct on are turbos being lower and lower clock speeds.. but they make server cpus with lower core counts and higher boost speeds. you are just here to complain about intel e cores it seems.

Intel® Xeon® 6 processors Product Specifications

Intel® Xeon® 6 processors product listing with links to detailed product features and specifications.

www.intel.com

Sorted by max turbo frequency, over 5 GHz models have cores: 6, 8, 8, 8, 6, 4, 4. Yes, you are right. LOWER core counts and higher boost speeds. Too bad, I want more than 8 cores for virtual machines. 8 cores were "OK" like when first Ryzen came out but now it's 2025 already.

Now Intel Xeon with over 5 GHz max turbo and at least 16 cores. Probably does not exist?

Like already said, AMD has Xeons for AM5 socket but they are pretty much identical vs regular Ryzens on home use and more expensive. Your "use server CPUs for VM" argument is pretty much proven invalid.

used server boards are cheaper than new desktop boards.... look at supermicro. also then you get bmc for remote management.

Its fine intel wont work for you, but again you are probably a 5% usage case. 95% of all other users intel p and e work fine.

Im going to say I bet before10 years passes amd will also drop SMT

They are used and they also have worse connectivity. I don't need memory management for local use.

Looking how badly Intel Hybrid CPUs do on work environments, percentage is much higher than 5%. Even if Intel Hybrid is "fine", AMD is still much better. Heck, many users say Switch 2 crap display is "just fine"

That happens to be seen. Intel dropped it because Intel had to lower power consumption some way. Also AMD SMT implementation is better than Intel.

 

[bandit8623]

Intel® Xeon® 6 processors Product Specifications

Intel® Xeon® 6 processors product listing with links to detailed product features and specifications.

www.intel.com

Sorted by max turbo frequency, over 5 GHz models have cores: 6, 8, 8, 8, 6, 4, 4. Yes, you are right. LOWER core counts and higher boost speeds. Too bad, I want more than 8 cores for virtual machines. 8 cores were "OK" like when first Ryzen came out but now it's 2025 already.

Now Intel Xeon with over 5 GHz max turbo and at least 16 cores. Probably does not exist?

Like already said, AMD has Xeons for AM5 socket but they are pretty much identical vs regular Ryzens on home use and more expensive. Your "use server CPUs for VM" argument is pretty much proven invalid.

They are used and they also have worse connectivity. I don't need memory management for local use.

Looking how badly Intel Hybrid CPUs do on work environments, percentage is much higher than 5%. Even if Intel Hybrid is "fine", AMD is still much better. Heck, many users say Switch 2 crap display is "just fine"

That happens to be seen. Intel dropped it because Intel had to lower power consumption some way. Also AMD SMT implementation is better than Intel.

smt implementation isnt better... all smt has the inherent security risks. one of the reasons intel is moving maway from it. again in a few years amd will play catchup on that front

that AM5 board u got 2 years ago guess what? the io is outdated too....connectivity outdated

 

[HardReset]

smt implementation isnt better... all smt has the inherent security risks. one of the reasons intel is moving maway from it. again in a few years amd will play catchup on that front

that AM5 board u got 2 years ago guess what? the io is outdated too....connectivity outdated

AMD SMT gains (on/off) are larger than Intel, so AMD SMT is objectively better. AMD could already disable SMT if they want and of course when core counts increase, SMT has even less advantages. So your guess is pretty good.

Oh, outdated? Where is PCI Express 6.0? Nowhere. My board has 16 PCIe 5.0 lanes for GPU. Also 2*PCIe 5.0 NVMe x4 slots, 2*PCIe 4.0 NVMe x4 slots and 2*USB 2 ports. Outdated""

 

[Loadedaxe]

Intel is only company that has gone hybrid. Other companies put bih and smaller cores. Intel is only company stupid enough to combine consumer CPUs with different instruction set on same package.
Thread director is main reason for VM problems. And btw that is Hardware solution that exists on chip.

AMD solution has been available for long ttime. Unlike Intel, CPUs have exactly same instuction set support and identical architecture from software's POV.

Again, Intels hybrid is to combine two different ISA cores and then disabling some that are not supported on both CPUs. Intel is only one with stupid solution like that. Also including hardware "scheduler" on chip that works like trash is simply funny.

Intel is ahead on some single core benchmarks but only because software used is very old. See, AMD Zen5 can handle AVX512 without major problems and therefore AMD is miles faster on single thread software. https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-zen5-avx-512-9950x

No Intel because no AVX512 support.

Intel has already admitted Raptor Lake durability problems. Even with stick settings.

Windows 11 is more optimized for multi core than hybrid. Again, it rarely makes sense to optimize hybrid instead multi core.

Like already described, using VM with hybrid is simply pain unless admin rights or similar are granted. On work enviroment rarely. E-cores are simply panic solution and disaster on every front
Again Intel is only company going hybrid, tells more than enough?

The argument that Intel only leads in outdated software benchmarks overlooks the nuanced reality of workload diversity. While Zen 5’s AVX512 support is a clear strength in certain floating point heavy or HPC scenarios, it remains a niche optimization target. Most mainstream software, especially games and desktop productivity tools, still rely heavily on legacy instruction paths, where Intel’s architectural maturity, high frequency performance, and compiler optimizations continue to offer strong single threaded performance.

Zen 5’s performance uplift is impressive, but it’s workload sensitive, not an outright sweep.
Intel’s exclusion of AVX512 wasn’t due to technical incapacity, it was a strategic design choice. Previous gen Rocket Lake supported AVX512, but it was dropped to improve thermal headroom and simplify hybrid design integration. That’s a reasonable tradeoff given the limited adoption of AVX512 in consumer apps.

On Raptor Lake stability, yes....Intel faced some backlash, especially with certain BIOS and power tuning profiles pushing systems out of spec. But they’ve responded with baseline power profiles and microcode fixes. It’s not ideal, but it's being addressed, suggesting platform maturity rather than systemic design flaws.

Windows 11, contrary to the claim, was architected around hybrid CPU scheduling, especially through Thread Director, which allocates workloads across P-cores and E-cores based on dynamic telemetry. The idea that Windows 11 favors symmetric multi core designs ignores the foundational hybrid aware optimizations baked into the OS kernel.

It’s also true that VM environments on hybrid setups can be tricky without admin level configuration, something that’s definitely a pain point in managed work environments. But that’s more a limitation of IT policy and configuration than a failure of the hybrid architecture itself. Enterprise IT departments that invest in hybrid hardware generally tailor their VM workloads accordingly.

I do agree hybrid isn’t perfect. It's hard to broadly recommend to gamers, 100% I agree, especially those seeking plug-and-play simplicity. But dismissing it outright as a “panic solution” overlooks the larger industry trend.

Apple, Qualcomm, and reportedly even AMD are embracing hybrid design paradigms. Intel may have been early, and imperfect.....but hybrid’s benefits in power scaling and background task efficiency are becoming increasingly important in modern compute workloads.

 

[HardReset]

The argument that Intel only leads in outdated software benchmarks overlooks the nuanced reality of workload diversity. While Zen 5’s AVX512 support is a clear strength in certain floating point heavy or HPC scenarios, it remains a niche optimization target. Most mainstream software, especially games and desktop productivity tools, still rely heavily on legacy instruction paths, where Intel’s architectural maturity, high frequency performance, and compiler optimizations continue to offer strong single threaded performance.

Zen 5’s performance uplift is impressive, but it’s workload sensitive, not an outright sweep.
Intel’s exclusion of AVX512 wasn’t due to technical incapacity, it was a strategic design choice. Previous gen Rocket Lake supported AVX512, but it was dropped to improve thermal headroom and simplify hybrid design integration. That’s a reasonable tradeoff given the limited adoption of AVX512 in consumer apps.

How you define "niche optimization target"? Using any modern compiler, including Intel, this "niche optimization target" could be added on software in, say, few seconds + compile time. Since Zen 5 launch there are practically no reasons to compile every new software to use AVX512. Intel is OK for legacy software but again, AVX512 compilation is mostly effortless so why not? As for legacy software too, Intel is planning to drop most legacy software support and use (microcode?)emulation instead.

Latter chapter makes no sense at all. Intel has promoted AVX512 for ages. Now Intel suddenly decides NOT to support it on flagship desktop CPU and that is "strategic design choice". Despite fact that AVX512 support was enabled until disabled on microcode. More about this later.

On Raptor Lake stability, yes....Intel faced some backlash, especially with certain BIOS and power tuning profiles pushing systems out of spec. But they’ve responded with baseline power profiles and microcode fixes. It’s not ideal, but it's being addressed, suggesting platform maturity rather than systemic design flaws.

Windows 11, contrary to the claim, was architected around hybrid CPU scheduling, especially through Thread Director, which allocates workloads across P-cores and E-cores based on dynamic telemetry. The idea that Windows 11 favors symmetric multi core designs ignores the foundational hybrid aware optimizations baked into the OS kernel.

It’s also true that VM environments on hybrid setups can be tricky without admin level configuration, something that’s definitely a pain point in managed work environments. But that’s more a limitation of IT policy and configuration than a failure of the hybrid architecture itself. Enterprise IT departments that invest in hybrid hardware generally tailor their VM workloads accordingly.

Raptor Lake was rushed design, confirmed by Intel employees. Another problem was huge power consumption that surely make CPUs break down faster. Perhaps not only reason but big anyway.

Hybrid optimizations are mostly done on Thread director that again makes poor job. Windows kernel optimizations are mostly "we are aware that hybrid architecture is like this", not much else. Also Serious software optimizations are mostly lacking.

You really cannot do too much optimizations for VM because most responsible is Thread director and that is something you cannot change. To change that behaviour on easily Windows you need admin/BIOS rights. Not surprising that most enterprise class departments rarely grant admin/BIOS rights for normal users. And usually enterprise class IT departments are so busy that they have no time for that kind of small job. Again, I have seen several working computers with VM problems and either problem is too hard for IT department or they just don't care "because it works". Just buy AMD and no problem.

I do agree hybrid isn’t perfect. It's hard to broadly recommend to gamers, 100% I agree, especially those seeking plug-and-play simplicity. But dismissing it outright as a “panic solution” overlooks the larger industry trend.

Apple, Qualcomm, and reportedly even AMD are embracing hybrid design paradigms. Intel may have been early, and imperfect.....but hybrid’s benefits in power scaling and background task efficiency are becoming increasingly important in modern compute workloads.

No no and no. There are big differences between Hybrid architecture and others that are "somewhat similar" but practically no. Let's look 4 most common ones:

ARM: Introduced big.LITTLE when 64-bit ARM v8something was introduced. Not big problem as ARM could make it clear that 64-bit ARM software must be aware of different architectures cores on same CPU.

Apple: Designed own ARM cores without much hardware backwards compatibility. Problems are easy to avoid.

Then for x86. Since x86 was introduced decades ago and until Intel Hybrid, there was no idea about two different architectures on same CPU, it makes two huge problems:

- If instruction set support is different, having "wrong" instruction on CPU core makes whole CPU crash
- If architectures are different from software POV, programs unaware of this will very likely crash.

How Intel "solved" these problems? First problem was assessed disabling heavily promoted AVX512. Second problem, well, you can easily disable E-cores that make CPU much slower of course. Pathetic.

AMD solved both problems. Instruction sets are same, from software's POV even architecture is exactly same. Well done AMD.

As for WHY Alder/Raptor lake is panic solution without any debate? Turn back time when Intel is designing Alder lake. They start designing Golden cove and decide that they want Hybrid architecture. Unless Intel CPU designers are braindead morons, they will notice there two huge problems. And then they realize only proper way to address them both is to have same architecture on both CPU cores. Not necessarily internally but how software sees them. And develop something like AMD did.

What happened? Intel noticed that they cannot put more than 8 big cores on CPU. Now AMD has 16 cores. What to do? Only "modern" small core they have ready (developing new core takes at least 3.5 years at best) is Gracemont, meant for Atom devices. Too bad, it lacks both Hyper threading and AVX-512 support but nothing better is available.

So yeah. If Intel engineers really originally thought they pair Crestmont with Golden cove, they are stupidest CPU engineers ever. Additionally Golden cove architecture was probably designed around 2017 (Skylake "around 2013", Sunny cove "around 2015", latter had manufacturing problems) that gave Intel plenty of time to design proper E-core. Even more proof that whole Hybrid trash was panic solution.

 

[bandit8623]

AMD SMT gains (on/off) are larger than Intel, so AMD SMT is objectively better. AMD could already disable SMT if they want and of course when core counts increase, SMT has even less advantages. So your guess is pretty good.

Oh, outdated? Where is PCI Express 6.0? Nowhere. My board has 16 PCIe 5.0 lanes for GPU. Also 2*PCIe 5.0 NVMe x4 slots, 2*PCIe 4.0 NVMe x4 slots and 2*USB 2 ports. Outdated""

that means you just bought the latest greatest doesnt it? again you are not a majority of users. you are maybe a 5%er. 95% of everyone else P and E work just fine. thats what this entire argument is about for you. remember? how p and e dont work? but they do

this isnt an argument whats better, you made this into how shitty p and e is. its not shitty it works pretty damn well , just not for you and your special case

 

[HardReset]

that means you just bought the latest greatest doesnt it? again you are not a majority of users. you are maybe a 5%er. 95% of everyone else P and E work just fine. thats what this entire argument is about for you. remember? how p and e dont work? but they do

this isnt an argument whats better, you made this into how shitty p and e is. its not shitty it works pretty damn well , just not for you and your special case

Not greatest but good. PCIe development takes years.

P and E work "just fine" except: https://mattfife.com/?p=5983

That got fixed but PC industry is full of software that will never get updated. How about those? You can of course disable E-cores to solve problem. Where we come to that 95%/5%. Why Intel offers option to disable E-cores if they work "just fine"?

• Power-up system and enter system BIOS setup.
• Enable switch Legacy Game Compatibility Mode to ON (one-time only) in BIOS.
• Save BIOS setup changes and exit.
• Boot to OS.
• Toggle Keyboard Scroll Lock key ON.

BTW. AMD does NOT offer that kind of an option for their CPU/APU that has both big and small cores. Why? Because they work just fine. Without quotation marks

I could offer more cases where Hybrid works like trash but those will be again something that no-one cares so I don't bother.

 

[Loadedaxe]

Not greatest but good. PCIe development takes years.

P and E work "just fine" except: https://mattfife.com/?p=5983

That got fixed but PC industry is full of software that will never get updated. How about those? You can of course disable E-cores to solve problem. Where we come to that 95%/5%. Why Intel offers option to disable E-cores if they work "just fine"?

BTW. AMD does NOT offer that kind of an option for their CPU/APU that has both big and small cores. Why? Because they work just fine. Without quotation marks

I could offer more cases where Hybrid works like trash but those will be again something that no-one cares so I don't bother.

Actually, I do, this topic has made me do a lot of reading, interesting. If we all cant come to common ground, whats the point. For me this is good.

I have personally learned more about this subject than I care to admit.

 

[bandit8623]

Your only problem is who you're arguing with... as long as it's about AMD, he will never stop extolling their virtues... harder to refute him in the CPU space, although the GPU sections are kind of embarrassing for him...

Not greatest but good. PCIe development takes years.

P and E work "just fine" except: https://mattfife.com/?p=5983

That got fixed but PC industry is full of software that will never get updated. How about those? You can of course disable E-cores to solve problem. Where we come to that 95%/5%. Why Intel offers option to disable E-cores if they work "just fine"?

BTW. AMD does NOT offer that kind of an option for their CPU/APU that has both big and small cores. Why? Because they work just fine. Without quotation marks

I could offer more cases where Hybrid works like trash but those will be again something that no-one cares so I don't bother.

I play a ton of drm games and they all work fine. must have been fixed. also most likely an issue running older windows where not built for it. article from 2021?? thats when the new cpu type came out

 

[HardReset]

I play a ton of drm games and they all work fine. must have been fixed. also most likely an issue running older windows where not built for it. article from 2021?? thats when the new cpu type came out

Not issue with Windows but again two different CPU architectures on same package. Also many old games will never be fixed. AMD has no problems with CPU containing c-cores, Intel just messed up. Why take any risks? AMD just works.

On 2024 Intel crashes much more than AMD https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/intel-communication-failure/

Just admit Intel fd up.

 

[bandit8623]

Not issue with Windows but again two different CPU architectures on same package. Also many old games will never be fixed. AMD has no problems with CPU containing c-cores, Intel just messed up. Why take any risks? AMD just works.

On 2024 Intel crashes much more than AMD https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/intel-communication-failure/

Just admit Intel fd up.

idk man you are making issues where they arent. older games? just change affinity.... simple thats even if it is a problem still. still dont see your point on they messed up? its a new technology... thats how things go.. need to innovate not do the same thing over and over..Are u mad ar ARM? its completely not compatible with current software... at some point with emulation though it will be. in 15 years when youj buy your first ARM cpu you are going to come on here and cry about how you cant play a 21 year old game?

 

[HardReset]

idk man you are making issues where they arent. older games? just change affinity.... simple thats even if it is a problem still. still dont see your point on they messed up? its a new technology... thats how things go.. need to innovate not do the same thing over and over..Are u mad ar ARM? its completely not compatible with current software... at some point with emulation though it will be.

With properly done, there is no need for affinity, process lasso, disabling E-cores etc etc. To put it another way: Neither Apple or ARM do no need any "disable cores" -type tweaks. You can argue those CPUs run other than x86 but then we also have AMD. Does AMD need any "disable c-cores" type tweaks? No. That's The Problem: AMD made proper use of "small" cores whereas Intel broke compatibility and caused tons of issues. Because again, Intel made badly thought panic solution that works like trash. On other side we have AMD with basically zero problems except sometimes c-cores are used too much.

AMD solution is so much better it's safe to say Intel sucks. That's how it is.

 

[bandit8623]

With properly done, there is no need for affinity, process lasso, disabling E-cores etc etc. To put it another way: Neither Apple or ARM do no need any "disable cores" -type tweaks. You can argue those CPUs run other than x86 but then we also have AMD. Does AMD need any "disable c-cores" type tweaks? No. That's The Problem: AMD made proper use of "small" cores whereas Intel broke compatibility and caused tons of issues. Because again, Intel made badly thought panic solution that works like trash. On other side we have AMD with basically zero problems except sometimes c-cores are used too much.

AMD solution is so much better it's safe to say Intel sucks. That's how it is.

you keep going in circles. time are changing you are likely an old dog that doesnt like new tricks. its good and fine. but again you are a 5% er with problems

of course gamers dont need to force a game to run on 1 ccd becuase only 1 ccd has 3d cache... oh wait thats amd. . oh no a work around..... stop just stop

 

[Squid Surprise]

you keep going in circles. time are changing you are likely an old dog that doesnt like new tricks. its good and fine. but again you are a 5% er with problems

of course gamers dont need to force a game to run on 1 ccd becuase only 1 ccd has 3d cache... oh wait thats amd. . oh no a work around..... stop just stop

He never will... here's hoping Intel can stay in the CPU game just to keep AMD honest and competitive with prices... 5k for a 7980x (and probably more for the 9980x) is simply because Intel has nothing to compete in the HEDT space (Xeons do NOT compete - and they're far more expensive and deliver far less performance).

 

[HardReset]

you keep going in circles. time are changing you are likely an old dog that doesnt like new tricks. its good and fine. but again you are a 5% er with problems

of course gamers dont need to force a game to run on 1 ccd becuase only 1 ccd has 3d cache... oh wait thats amd. . oh no a work around..... stop just stop

AMD solution just works. There is no need to disable "small" cores and everything still works. Not crash. Feel free to search for more problems, then you realize your 5% is very small problem.

1. There is workaround 2. that has nothing to do with E/c-cores 3. even with problems, programs still work, not crash.

How about saying good arguments? So far your only contribution is to downplay any issues Intel trash system has. I already proved it sucks and you have offered nothing to change my mind.

 

[HardReset]

you keep going in circles. time are changing you are likely an old dog that doesnt like new tricks. its good and fine. but again you are a 5% er with problems

of course gamers dont need to force a game to run on 1 ccd becuase only 1 ccd has 3d cache... oh wait thats amd. . oh no a work around..... stop just stop

If you Really missed my point, I explain it very simply here.

IBM PC was introduced 1981. Since then almost every PC software has been "IBM PC compatible", meaning backwards compatibility on CPU side has been basically perfect. Some super old programs won't work but basically anything 16-bit and newer should work on modern CPUs. Software creates lots of restrictions (64-bit mode not supporting 16-bit, Windows is not MS-DOS etc etc) but leaving software issues aside, there has not been major issues when new CPUs were launched when it comes software Working (=not crashing).

Basically if you upgrade CPU, you don't have to worry about software not working because of CPU. Then becomes Intel Hybrid Architecture and Alder Lake!

Now, after 40 years there is finally situation where upgrading your CPU and using it on default settings makes quite many games and other software crash! Awesome! Good work Intel! ""

 

[bandit8623]

If you Really missed my point, I explain it very simply here.

IBM PC was introduced 1981. Since then almost every PC software has been "IBM PC compatible", meaning backwards compatibility on CPU side has been basically perfect. Some super old programs won't work but basically anything 16-bit and newer should work on modern CPUs. Software creates lots of restrictions (64-bit mode not supporting 16-bit, Windows is not MS-DOS etc etc) but leaving software issues aside, there has not been major issues when new CPUs were launched when it comes software Working (=not crashing).

Basically if you upgrade CPU, you don't have to worry about software not working because of CPU. Then becomes Intel Hybrid Architecture and Alder Lake!

Now, after 40 years there is finally situation where upgrading your CPU and using it on default settings makes quite many games and other software crash! Awesome! Good work Intel! ""

Around you keep going. people are not buying AMD becuse of compatibility being better.... like you say..no no. they are buying AMD right now because gaming is faster atm. your argument that intel doesnt work is so stupid

 

[bandit8623]

AMD solution just works. There is no need to disable "small" cores and everything still works. Not crash. Feel free to search for more problems, then you realize your 5% is very small problem.

1. There is workaround 2. that has nothing to do with E/c-cores 3. even with problems, programs still work, not crash.

How about saying good arguments? So far your only contribution is to downplay any issues Intel trash system has. I already proved it sucks and you have offered nothing to change my mind.

when an issue effects less than 2% of the user base its a non issue. I did bring up a good argument. ccds with AMD. you have to change a setting to get games to work well.... but you think AMD is perfect and it just works.... nothing works flawlessly all the time. you are biased and wont admit it.

 

[HardReset]

when an issue effects less than 2% of the user base its a non issue. I did bring up a good argument. ccds with AMD. you have to change a setting to get games to work well.... but you think AMD is perfect and it just works.... nothing works flawlessly all the time. you are biased and wont admit it.

It was 5% and now it's 2%. Anyway that makes BIG difference when it happens.

As for CCD issue only makes games work faster or slower. They still work. With Hybrid, some software won't work at all unless disabling cores. Again this has nothing to do with Hybrid and you also can buy single CCD version that solves all "wrong CCD" problems.

And again AMD works, Intel crashes.