I don’t see that as evidence of blatant bias for Intel. The site is just aimed at helping the average consumer pick out a part, and I think the weighting makes sense.
Most applications can only make use of a few CPU-heavy threads at a time, and these systems with with 18 cores will not make any difference for the average user. In fact, the 18 core behemoth might actually feel slower for regular desktop usage since it’s clocked lower.
If you are a pro with a CPU-heavy workflow that scales well with more threads, then you probably don’t need some consumer benchmark website to tell you that you need a CPU with more cores.
But lots of things do use more than 4 cores, with games especially growing in core use over time. Even more so if you want to stream to your friends or have browsers and such open in the background. To suddenly set that to almost zero weight, when it was already a pretty low fraction, right when zen 2 came out, is clear bias.
> In fact, the 18 core behemoth might actually feel slower for regular desktop usage since it’s clocked lower.
The amount of processes running on a windows OS reached 'ludicrous speed' many years ago. Most of these are invisible to the user, doing things like telemetry, hardware interaction, and low level and mid level OS services.
A quick inspection of the details tab in my task manager shows around 200 processes, only half of which are browser.
And starting a web browser with one page results in around half a dozen processes
Most applications can only make use of a few CPU-heavy threads at a time, and these systems with with 18 cores will not make any difference for the average user. In fact, the 18 core behemoth might actually feel slower for regular desktop usage since it’s clocked lower.
If you are a pro with a CPU-heavy workflow that scales well with more threads, then you probably don’t need some consumer benchmark website to tell you that you need a CPU with more cores.