Due to the separation between the “performance” and “efficiency” cores of the CPU, enabling/disabling the cores and selling the CPU as a lower model is no longer as obvious as before, when there was no difference between the cores. .

If too many “E” cores are broken, the “P” cores that work well are still useless. It also works the other way.

Then I hear you say, but then Intel sells “misfires” for cheaper? They can do it, but then unreliable CPUs will appear on the market, violating Intel’s image and you will see that budget buyers would rather bet on “bugs” than go for a reliable CPU that costs a little more. Because there is always a success story with “mixed” people on the Internet and this creates very high expectations. Then Intel cuts itself at least twice in the fingers.

If you want to make a good impression as a CPU manufacturer, you must have at least similar CPUs in different price ranges as your direct competitor. If the Youtuber in this article is right, then this is a huge mistake from Intel.

Manage up to 40 PCs with Intel and AMD processors. Each of them has its advantages and disadvantages. I’m very happy with both, but when it comes to push, my preference is AMD. Anyway, gaming hasn’t really mattered much for a long time, and in my (subjective) opinion, AMD does better when it comes to multi-cores. This then intrigues me.

But other than that they are not much different from each other. I measure what the systems draw from the wall in watts, and take consumption specifications as notification. Thus the low numbers on the spec sheet have little value to me, the results of my measurements in reality often give a very different picture than what the spec sheets promise. So far, the difference between AMD and Intel systems is small. Especially if there is no or (very light) video card in the system.