"AMD EPYC 7000 series" is so vague as to be almost meaningless... so we need more info there. The 8175M's base clock 2.5Ghz, with a Turbo (all core) of 3.1Ghz

"AMD EPYC 7000 series" is so vague as to be almost meaningless... so we need more info there. The 8175M's base clock 2.5Ghz, with a Turbo (all core) of 3.1Ghz and (one core) 3.5Ghz. > assuming the IPC is similar to Intel Using your assumption as a criteria... the Platinum 8175M should perform the same as an AMD EPYC 7763, whose base clock is also at 2.5Ghz with 3.5Ghz top Turbo speed. This is the only EPYC part that keeps nearly the exact same clocks as the Platinum at every stage. But we know the IPCs aren't equal, so I don't even know why you'd mention that when discussing your comparison when it's so fatally flawed from the start. Even using something as rudimentary as Passmark highlights the difference. 8175M Single Thread Rating on Passmark: 1903 EPYC 7763 Single Thread Rating on Passmark: 2639 So, clock for clock where the speed stages area identical, AMD wins. Going through the list of every Eypc 7000 series part I could find, the one that turbos at or near 2.5Ghz is the 7551... first gen part and only hits 2.55Ghz when it's all core turbo. EPYC 7551 Single Thread Rating: 1813. Performance difference ratio of single thread rating between EPYC 7551 vs Platinum 8175M: 0.95270625328 Cost difference ratio of EPYC 7551 vs Platinum 8175M: 0.89583333333 Looks like AMD is still the more cost effective solution here.