The results are quite even, Intel pulls ahead barely in most but not all scenarios. In the 6-4-2-core tests of the Intel part at 4C there is a slight FPS reduction (big in Dazar’alor), and in some lightweight scenarios (Stonard, Karazan out of combat) the FPS is even bit higher than 6C. At 2C it goes noticeably down. So multiple cores do matter
They’re about the same now, just that AMD seems to be able to do it with less power. But that’s due to Intel being unable to move from 14nm +++++ or whatever it is now.
It’s something for that company to work on, getting the performance but not having to use up so much electricity/wattage to get it. I do think Intel has taken the i range as far as it can go.
Time for a completely new setup now with their processors.
Anything on 14nm will be similar. You get bit more clocks and bit more improvements to be equal or bit ahead of second gen Ryzen while third gen will come out this year too.
Mobile space may change more as finally Intel may get a better 10nm there plus the upcoming AMD APU with up to 8 cores
Looking at things, 10th gen won’t even cut it against 3rd gen Ryzens at the moment. Intel really needs to get off the 14nm process, they’ve taken it as far as they can but any gains will be small and comes with a huge power usage.
And that’s before Ryzen 4th gen comes out later this year as well. (Probably going to upgrade my 2nd gen to that.)
But I am glad that slowly AMD are getting better at single core performance and have closed that gap a lot these days. And as for multi-core performance they’re just ahead. And that’s before moving to Threadripper. With the 3990 being able to run Crysis in a playable state software wise.
