I dislike these Epyc things being called processors, they really are just multi-processor/chip packages. We really need some new terminology, and no not chiplets either they are still chips on a daughter board rather than the main board.
Core count is not really that important, performance and compatiblity is. Depends on workloads.
AMD had a good run this time, but Intel still sits on 85% of enterprise server market and will eat their way back to 90%+ in a few years
While also dominated enterprise laptop segment 95%
And grabbing back huge amounts of marketshare on desktop segment too. Intel outsold AMD in the last 2 quarters here. Alder Lake simply has better performance per dollar than AMD offerings.
I'm glad that AMD had a good run tho, because they were close to bankruptcy prior to Ryzen. Bulldozer and Piledriver (aka Crapdozer and Pileofshit) were terrible CPUs, atleast Ryzen are now actually worth buying. They need to focus on performance per dollar again tho, stuff like B450 + Ryzen 3600 were great value. Something they ruined with 5000 series.
They also need to stop gimping their lower end GPUs, like 6500 and 6600 series with trashy 64 and 128 bit busses + PCIe speed limited to x8 - Sigh...
Server software usually can use all available cores OR can be divided across all cores. So core count is pretty much equal to performance assuming per core performance is not lowered much. And on AMD Epyc's it's not lowered too much.
Intel still does not have anything against Zen2 Epyc's.