Yeah, totally agreed. But if you read these comments, they seem to be in total amazement about the performance gap and not acknowledging how much of an advantage being a fab generation ahead is.

Customers don't care, but discussion of the merits of the chip should be more nuanced about this.

It also implies that the gap won't exist for very long, as AMD will move onto 5nm soon

> It also implies that the gap won't exist for very long, as AMD will move onto 5nm soon

... yes, if there is any capacity left. Capacity for the new process is a limited resource after all.

People keep pointing this out but has Intel had such significant performance improvements since sandy bridge? With x86 it seems that lately you would be foolish to upgrade less than once every 3-4 years because the difference is just not that significant

The i7-2600K (Sandy Bridge) benchmarks at ~5000 on Passmark, and the i7-10700K at about 20,000. So it seems they've had quite a bit of improvement. Note this is going from 32nm to 14nm.

Intel is in a really bad place now (in a forward-looking sense), primarily due to their fab process falling behind TSMC and others. You can't design your way ahead while using old manufacturing technology

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-2600K...

Over the last decade or so Apple has gone from 10x slower than Intel to parity, mostly by implementing techniques that were already known. Surpassing the state of the art may be harder to do consistently.