Yes, at the cost of power usage, which you have to cool somehow.
From everything I've seen, the Intel cpus generally run cooler than whatever AMD has to offer.
That is a thing of the past with the TSMC 7nm node. Intels flagship 14nm++ 10900K is 125W TDP. Compared to the average CPUs for cheap, entry-level gaming (Ryzen 3600: 65W) that is a lot of heat to dissipate. If you don't have water cooling or steady airflow, your CPU is going to throttle after a while. Especially in the summer.
The i5 10600k has better performance than the 3600 at almost exactly the same stock temperatures. The actual AMD cpus which are comparable to the i5 run at higher stock temperatures.
That graph doesn't mean what you think it means. Measuring max temperature is super iffy, and has a lot of variables: Case, cooling solution, thermal paste/pad, ambient temperature, humidity.
They can at least advertise a 1000% performance increase over the Intel HD 630, no matter how shit their cards will be.
Most of it comes down to individuals in the build-a-PC nerd culture having a lot of pent up rage towards Intel for various retarded reasons and (stupidly) envisioning AMD as some sort of scrappy underdog valiantly fighting to bring better value to CPU chips. This is nothing new and has been happening for decades, the only thing that's changed is that AMD has been making better chips the last few years. To put it all in perspective, there were morons riding AMD's jock even when they were putting out absolutely abysmal chips that no sane, emotionally-level person should ever consider buying such as Bulldozer.
Which is absurd because AMD "driver problems" have been a myth for at least a decade now. I can count on one hand the number of times I've had to roll back a driver update, and Geforce driver rollbacks are certainly no less common from what I see in threads here and on reddit about AAA/bleeding edge graphics games.
