"The Geekbench 4 benchmark holds little to no relevance in the enterprise world. Nevertheless, it gives us a small taste of how AMD's EPYC 7002-series can provide enterprises with more bang for their buck."
And then they go right ahead and make 'comparisons' based on irrelevant workloads. Not saying AMD isn't faster or better price/perf but please do the benchmarks properly. Same can be said of comparison of POWER 9 vs amd/intc.
People like to say "synthetic benchmarks have no relevance to the real world" to sound smart, but that isn't ever entirely true. They are all relevant to soem degree. Somewhere in the world is a real task that looks like any given synthetic benchmark. The danger is that the real world use cases that show some relevance with the synthetic benchmark may be more or less rare.
In this case, there are whole suites of benchmarks and real applications that have been compared between the new Epyc's and the Xeons and the only time Xeon has been on part with Epyc that I have seen so far is AVX-512 specific workloads. It is possible there may be some workloads where the worse ram latency of Epyc is a penalty that cannot be overcome by the larger L3 cache size. That used to be an issue on the previous gen Epyc, but the infinity fabric is faster now and the L3 caches are twice as big.
While nobody will decide which server to buy based on Geekbench alone, the cost/performance difference will be reflected in other benchmarks. With a 5x advantage for AMD, I doubt there will be any single benchmark in which a similar Intel box will perform better than the AMD one.
And then they go right ahead and make 'comparisons' based on irrelevant workloads. Not saying AMD isn't faster or better price/perf but please do the benchmarks properly. Same can be said of comparison of POWER 9 vs amd/intc.