Intel's Xeon w9-3495X workstation processor has affirmed its position near the top of PassMark's High End CPU chart, becoming only the second chip to have settled on an average score over 100,000 points. However, the Sapphire Rapids-WS part was not able to overtake AMD's EPYC 9654 despite slightly breaking up Team Red's chart domination.https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Xeon-w9-3495X-vs-AMD-EPYC-9654-Sapphire-Rapids-shows-giant-strength-per-core-but-Genoa-Zen-4-has-the-efficiency-edge-in-battle-of-PassMark-leaders.727391.0.html
Where did the numbers mentioned there come from?
Right there it says 2926 vs 3430 in Single-core score. Also, the EPYC MT score should be much higher than that.
Why the hell does this pointless utter trash a$$ comparison article even exist??? O_o Workstation processors and server processors are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MARKETS, with DRAMATICALLY different clock-speed targets! This is a meaningless comparison that contributes NOTHING and is actually EXTREMELY misleading.
(Literally the ONLY reason SR-WS wins in single core is bc you're comparing a high-clocked workstation to low-clocked server part.)
If you wanna compare Sapphire Rapids to EPYC Genoa then use Sapphire Rapids-SP (aka server) like an ACTUALLY at least basic technologically literate person (where it loses in BOTH multi AND single core performance, while still getting curb stomped in efficiency), or DON'T MAKE ANY COMPARISONS AT ALL!
Sapphire Rapids-WS should only be directly compared to the upcoming also high-clocked Zen 4 Threadripper's, which again, just like Ryzen 7000 vs Intel 12th Gen or EPYC Genoa vs Sapphire Rapids-SP (both Zen 4 vs Golden Cove) will have Intel losing ACROSS THE BOARD!
Literally the ONLY place Sapphire Rapids can beat Zen 4 is when those various on-die, costs extra to enable, ASIC accelerators it has can be properly utilized.
Looks like paid article from Intel. Totally pointless comparison and wording it to think Intel is the best.crap