They have a new socket so even if you bought a motherboard a few months ago that wouldn’t work.
I hate that Intel 16th gen Lunarrow Lake is not Made by Intel, literally no reason to buy from them.
Being 2nd best when there's only two choices for x86 CPUs makes them the worst at everything.
AMDs x3D chips are exceptionally good for gaming but are relatively very poor for MT “productivity” stuff (this gen seems to be a lot better at that, though).
13/14th gen also seemingly also had somewhat better price/performance overall than AM5 chips.
Just look at how many products people buy based on cost alone
Personally, when I first got access to an Epyc, I was underwhelmed by the performance. For numerical performance it was slightly worse than M2 or cheap old Intel processors. I'm now a bit skeptical of reviews.
There might be valid comparisons for specific Epyc generations and their Xeon counterparts. But processors are a bit like car engines. Power and torque numbers doesn't tell the whole story.
Datacenter processors are optimized for different scenarios. Use the wrong processor for the wrong job, and you get abysmal performance. We have an AMD system which won't win any speed records, but that thing has enormous number of memory channels and PCIe lanes, so it's basically a semi with an extra long trailer.
Fittingly, that processor lives in a storage cluster and delivers tremendous amount of I/O both in IOPS and throughput. Same processor would look silly in a compute cluster, though.
Maybe this is Intel's new marketing strategy. Astroturfing has been around for decades now; Microsoft was doing it in the early 2000s.
Or you could back up your claim with actual data.
Why would that be particularly relevant when comparing the performance of specific individual chips?
Should have insisted on a Framework, by the sounds of it, it would actually have at least not worse battery life.