For what it's worth, Intel is still faster in most applications, simply by virtue of having a clock speed advantage that by far exceeds any IPC difference, and also by having
much lower memory latencies. AMD has basically a 20-30 ns extra latency over Intel; so with good memory you can do ~45 ns on current Intels, but that will give you ~65 ns on a Ryzen. That's significant for a lot of code (e.g. pointer chasing, complex logic etc.).
On the other hand, few applications scale efficiently to more than just four cores. Yes, of course, AMD delivers more Cinebenchpoints-per-Dollar and usually more Cinebenchpoints overall, but that's not necessarily an interesting metric.
Personally I find that if I'm waiting on something to complete that the application in question tends to use only a tiny number of cores for the task at hand. Usually one.
Another significant weakness of AMD's current platform is idle power consumption.
These factors leave me with a much more nuanced impression than "Intel is ded" or "HOW IS INTEL GOING TO CATCH UP TO THIS????"; CPU reviews these days are just pure clickbait.
On the other hand, few applications scale efficiently to more than just four cores. Yes, of course, AMD delivers more Cinebenchpoints-per-Dollar and usually more Cinebenchpoints overall, but that's not necessarily an interesting metric.
Personally I find that if I'm waiting on something to complete that the application in question tends to use only a tiny number of cores for the task at hand. Usually one.
Another significant weakness of AMD's current platform is idle power consumption.
These factors leave me with a much more nuanced impression than "Intel is ded" or "HOW IS INTEL GOING TO CATCH UP TO THIS????"; CPU reviews these days are just pure clickbait.