> That's the thing most people don't get about Intel: nothing has really changed perf-wise since Haswell, which is older than that. Single core performance on

> That's the thing most people don't get about Intel: nothing has really changed perf-wise since Haswell, which is older than that. Single core performance on current i9 processors benchmarks at twice the performance of the Haswell chips. Multicore performance is ~4x. They definitely slept for a while and AMD started taking their lunch money with Ryzen and EPYC but "nothing has really changed since Haswell" is blatantly wrong. > If your old Haswell / Skylake machines still work (and if you don't need Windows 11 which doesn't support them), there's zero technical reason to upgrade to something newer, at least on the desktop. Wrong again, mostly because quicksync in that old a processor won't handle current popular streaming video codecs so you end up with non-accelerated video decoding unless you've got a discrete GPU. > memory bandwidth improvements alone would have delivered the goods. No advantage from people upgrading from a Haswell's DDR3-1600 (13GB/sec) to Comet Lake's DDR4-2933 (94GB/sec), eh? Either it's not worth upgrading from Haswell or it is.