The arc on the 125u only has 4 Xe cores instead of the 7 on the 125h, that's the main difference, otherwise everything else is the same I think, same encoders and stuffs. More on reddit.com

ah another one of these "mid range bad" videos, thats a hard pass More on reddit.com

AMD's chips are better. Core Ultra is a step back. It really doesn't do any better than the 14th gen, sometimes worse. They still haven't improved power efficiency much. Do they work? Yes. Are there better options? Also yes. More on reddit.com

The thing people forget is that, it took AMD a while to optimize performance on linux, through kernel patches. Intels problem right now is sceduling in linux on Meteor lake, likely Lunar lake and arrow lake. AMD with the 7 and 8000 series did not change the cpu architecture that much ( 8 equal cores + hyper threading on each). Intel has since meteor lake 3 different core types and all with different kind of performance some with hyperthreading whicht makes sceduling on linux more difficult. The Zen 5 Ryzen HX 3XX AI Chips will likely have some optimization down the road as well. In all those benchmarks especially the multicore ones I wonder what the core utilisation is are all 14 physical cores used or just the performance cores OR when multicore task is present does the benchmark only use the 8 efficiency cores? Anyways the reason why would choose intel over AMD would be more physical cores and still optimization potential. + lower power draw when close to idle. Since I mainly work with neovim and pdf on the side my power draw would be fairly low until I compile something. More on reddit.com