ITS OFFICIAL PERFOMANCE DOESNT MATTER
INTODDLERS BTFO!
But Intel you're shit at architechture.
Defined by who has the least amount of flaws
>performance literally doesn't matter
Jesus Christ.
For latency-sensitive applications, they might actually be superior (for now they are, we'll see with Zen 2).
>used to be defined by clock speed
Ya don't say there bud
>architecture
isn't that one of Intel's biggest problems right now?
But are they, though? Take the 12c part. You're only inherently hit with that chiplet latency if your task can expand to 12 threads but requires low latency between each and every thread. If your task only need low latency between 8 threads, a smart scheduler can put related threads on the same chiplet, even the same CCX. But of course there are tasks that benefit from low latency between all threads, but then you have to consider that AMD's multithreaded performance is significantly better than Intel's, the 3900X trounces the 9920X. So Intel would only win in very specific scenarios where the marginal latency advantage outweighs AMD's overall performance advantage. It'd be so specific that I'd say the only way it'd be pronounced is, ironically, through synthetic tests designed to exploit low latency across many threads. But of course, this is all predicated on AMD getting Microsoft to make the NT scheduler halfway decent. It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out, but AMD could do some powerful stuff with good software. Right now Threadripper can game decently if you disable chiplets to force execution on one, but if AMD can motivate MS, Windows should be able to give a game, or other low latency workload, exclusive control of a chiplet, and move other threads to other chiplets.
unless those apps are confinded to use certain amount of cores then yes you are correct
this was the case in the 1900s tho not now