Good point. Intel's 40 cores are basically 80 cores due to hyper threading. Some people don't like hyperthreading for various reasons but it would be better to say the comparison is between 128 cores of Ampere and 80 cores of Intel.
But then again, number of cores is really a crude measure. We need to measure what those machines can really do...
P.S. Surprised I am being downvoted. If you only want to compare number of cores then I was implying that 80 is a better number than 40 to compare with 128. It gives you a rough idea of parallelism even though obviously HT does not give you 2x available cores all the time.
I also added a caveat that that number of cores is a crude measure anyways.
But then again, number of cores is really a crude measure. We need to measure what those machines can really do...
P.S. Surprised I am being downvoted. If you only want to compare number of cores then I was implying that 80 is a better number than 40 to compare with 128. It gives you a rough idea of parallelism even though obviously HT does not give you 2x available cores all the time.
I also added a caveat that that number of cores is a crude measure anyways.