Intel still has the better processor design. I mean even on inferior 10nm Inel own node, Golden Cove spanked Zen 3 in IPC and clocks. Even at par with Zen 4 in IPC or slightly ahead./
AMD just 8 core CCXs and no more cores per CCX even on HEDT Threadripper and EPYC Intel on Workstation and Server space can get more than 8 big cores on a single mesh or tile unlike AMD. Intel can do up to 12 P core or 16 e-core on current design as 4 e-cores take space of one P core.
And with rapid insane improvement of Skymont e-cores to have Raptor Cove IPC the Skymont cores already have IPC (6-9%) ahead of Zen 4 though a 500-900MHz clock speed deficiency compared to Zen 4 and 5. But Lion Cove has a 15% IPC uplift over Raptor Cove and can match or exceed Zen 4 and 5 clocks.
Intel has better CPU design.
Issue is can Intel just let it go with there Foundries. They are having trouble with their foundries and its just not working no producing good reliable yields on 10nm and beyond except maybe Alder Lake and a few mobile things before ALD? They need to just let it go and be like Apple and NVIDIA and AMD and let TSMC and oithers do it all for them whiule they design CPUs.
AMD is not going much of anywhere especially in mobile space with Intel Lunar Lake spanking it and beyond 8 cores in desktop space except for a VM hosting machine or non latency sensitive productivity forget about it with their max of 8 core CCX/CCDs which appears to not be changing ever.
Lets be fair here. Intel 10nm was on par or even better in performance and density metrics than the 7nm TSMC process. AMD had use of tiles/chiplets design (which I will point out that Intel has now finally adopted as well). I have to imagine that they gave up some latency and throughput in order to gain the advantages in yield and cost that the chiplets provide.
In the same generation, AMD started using stacked cache which pretty much took and still today retains the gaming performance crown away from Intel. I note that prior to this, much was always made of gaming benchmarks being the hallmark of processor performance (not sure why myself).
I will agree that Intel processor designs have had an edge in single threaded performance for quite some time; however, they have done so increasingly by sacrificing thermal performance...... so much so that 2 generations of these processors quite literally eat themselves due to Intel flying WAY too close to the design limits.
I'll give you the IPC argument; however, the clock speed was a mistake. It resulted in higher thermal density and the eventual failure of chips in the field, but Intel needed this clock speed in order to compete with the AMD chips that were running at a small fraction of the thermal load.
I'll also give it to you that Luner Lake leaks look good; however, lets not get too carried away here. If it turns out to be true that LLK has better performance than Zen 5, it will have done it due to Intel paying much higher prices for a better process node for the CPU die than AMD is paying for on Zen 5. FWIW, I remain skeptical that LLK is going to "spank" Zen 5 at all. Sure, it will have better multi-thread performance since it has access to more full cores than does Zen 5. Since AMD already has a larger core count version of their Zen 5c CCX on N3E, I wouldn't get too excited about the laptop and desktop LLK besting Zen 5 on a more expensive and more dense process. I certainly wouldn't go all the way to saying Intel has a "better CPU design".
I also find it interesting that suddenly multi-core benchmarks are so important to Intel on the laptop and desktop where before, these were de-emphasized by many (I assume because AMD did better in them). I suspect that AMD will be focusing on their single threaded performance (which still looks good against LLK I believe) and gaming performance once Zen 5 X3D chips come out.
Intel did a great job introducing asymmetric processing with the "big-little" concept. Caught AMD off guard there for sure. Still, one could easily argue that a Zen 5c core is superior to a LLK efficiency core. Intel simply put more E cores on a die than AMD is currently willing to do as it would require AMD pay for a more dense process node as well.
In the server market, AMD will still hold the core advantage with Turin .... and each of the E cores in Turin will have SMT providing an additional 30% performance. I am guessing that Turn will actually out perform Intel's planned 288 core Xeon, but I could be mistaken as many other factors will be in play other than individual core performance.
Does anyone know the relative die size of a N3E Zen 5c to an intel E core on N3E? I would love to look at the performance per die space comparison.