>FYI www.cpubenchmark.com is a running joke for how bad it is. It’s not a good resource.

You might be confusing them with UserBenchmark.

> For productivity you can check Phoronix or even the GeekBench details in the compiler section

I guess the reason people prefer something like cpubenchmark, is because it seems way easier to get an overview / see data in aggregate. GeekBench (https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/multicore) for example just puts a list of all benchmarks, even when the CPU is the same. Not exactly conductive for finding the right CPU.

>FYI www.cpubenchmark.com is a running joke for how bad it is. It’s not a good resource.

That's not the prevailing opinion at all. Passmark is just fine and does a lot to keep their data solid like taking extra steps to filter overclocked CPUs. Then you go on to recommend GeekBench??? Right...

it does feel like, when you click the, "pay 400$ more for a 30$ hardware upgrade" button, that tim apple himself is laughing at me knowing their siren song has already worked and I am at their mercy, wallet open...

Just buy an old one. Unless you are doing some sort of cutting edge work, an old one works fine. It's crazy how cheap they are. I assume because Apple users always like to churn to the newest thing.

You’re not missing out on a lot. Coming from someone who has used their products for many years now. Their products have more compromises and trade-offs now than they did during Apple’s Intel era.

What you will tangibly miss is low noise, low power draw hardware and very, very specific workloads being faster than the cutting edge AMD/Nvidia stack people are using today.

What's a better one where i can sort all cpus?

A 9800X3D is $479, my present choice of intel processor is $275.

Is it that much better? Show me.

I got a 265kf and motherboard for 350. Plenty fast and saves money for the real issue which is GPU costs. Thankfully B580 is actually a pretty good deal as well at 250 compared to green or red options. Team blue has some good deals out there really if you aren't tied to a team color.

‘Stupid’ is more than a bit strong. Your points are good and the tone undermines them.

I made the mistake of going with intel because of SR-IOV, which they still haven't mainlined to the linux kernel

>For example, Intel has no answer to the X3D V-cache architecture that makes AMD chips better for gaming.

So, it should be visible in gaming benchmarks, right?

>- If you’re looking for integrated graphics, you’re pretty much always better off with AMD over Intel

What? Lunar Lake CPU has strong iGPU

When i read "here's how i choose..." At no point did i engage with it under anything other than "this is what some random dude does once every 5 years" Let him pick his cpu how he does it. Youre overreacting, and frankly over emphasizing things that dont matter like needing vcache or avx512 or misapprehending his own price points

> $400 is an arbitrary price ceiling and you’re not looking at dollars per performance unit, you’re just cutting off with a maximum price. So if there’s a $430 AMD CPU that’s 20% faster you’re going to forego that better price per performance value just because it’s slightly above your price target.

My choice of CPU currently has the best value / performance on this benchmark aside from two very old AMD processors which are very slow and just happen to be extremely cheap. No new AMD processors are even remotely close.

It's also currently $285 no top tier performers are even close except SKUs which are slight variations of the same CPU.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html

> benchmarks don’t pick up unique CPU features nor they pick up real world application performance. For example, Intel has no answer to the X3D V-cache architecture that makes AMD chips better for gaming.

Happy to be convinced that there's a better benchmark out there, but if you're trying to tell me it's better but in a way that can't be measured, I don't believe you because that's just "bro science".

> If you’re looking for integrated graphics, you’re pretty much always better off with AMD over Intel

I never have been looking for integrated graphics, sometimes I have bought the CPU with it just because it was a little cheaper.

> You can’t really ignore motherboard cost and the frequency of platform socket changes. AMD has cheaper boards that last longer (as in, they update their sockets less often so you can upgrade chips more and keep your same board)

I've always bought a new motherboard with a CPU and either repurposed, sold, or given away the old CPU/motherboard combination which seems like a much better use of money. The last one went to somebody's little brother. The one before that is my NAS. There's not a meaningful difference to comparable motherboards to me, particularly when the competing AMD CPUs are nearly double the cost or more.