This is not Intel lying. It is just AMD whining (though with justified reason).
And Intel is not staking the deck either (not any more than
ANY marketing weenie does for the product they are barking). It is just good marketing.
And this is not about one being a AMD fanboy or a Intel fanboy either.
Pick any Internet browser and you can find a benchmark or review that puts it on top. Pick a anti-malware program and you can find a test that puts it on top. Pick any pickup truck and you can find a review or award that puts it on top.
All benchmarking programs are synthetic! Even those
marketed as representing "real-world" are not really real-world tests - in part because every single one of the estimated 1.5 billion Windows computers in use today becomes unique within the first couple minutes of its first use! Right off the bat, users setup their unique networking, security, backgrounds and Desktop colors, favorite browsers, printers (and other attached hardware), and install their favorite apps. They use the CPUs with their motherboards, their RAM, drives, and their graphics solutions - all of which can affect overall performance.
This is the same marketing propaganda war that happened years ago in the home entertainment industry over amplifier power ratings, distortion levels, frequency responses, and power handling capability of speaker systems. Klipsch claimed their horn based speakers were best because they were the most efficient. Bose claimed their backwards firing speakers were best because they had better "dispersion". AR claimed they were the best because they had the deepest distortion-free bass.
And all were right!
But no one speaker system had the best efficiency, deepest bass, highest highs, widest dispersion, tightest localization, and least distortion too. Plus, everyone's ears are different, as are their tastes in music (a critical criterial when selecting a speaker) - just as every Windows based computer is different and every computer user's needs are different too.
The problem here is AMD and Intel CPUs should not be compared directly in terms of "performance". This is especially pertinent since AMD announced several years ago it will
stop competing head-to-head with Intel.
It is
us, computer enthusiasts and the IT press (and smart IT marketing/PR weenies at Intel) who keep perpetrating the problem by constantly comparing the two in performance - forcing AMD to defend itself against unfair press reports and consumer perceptions.
I can't find a good analogy. Maybe it is like comparing an office desk chair to a recliner. They are both chairs. Both need to be comfortable. Both are for sitting and need to be reliable and long lasting. But can one claim to be better than the other? Yes! Depending on the test criteria (benchmark program) you use. But is one best for ALL your sitting needs? Of course not. It is hard to fall out of a recliner if you doze off!
AMD makes great CPUs! They are efficient, powerful, generally
very competitively priced, and
extremely reliable products you can expect to perform for years and years
flawlessly. While I just happen to prefer Intel CPUs for my personal builds, I've used AMDs on many builds with no problems, and still have happy clients.
And just another side note - while AMD CPUs tend to be more affordable, when you factor in the price of the motherboard, RAM, graphics solution, case, PSU, drives, keyboard & mouse, speakers, and monitor, the cost difference becomes much less significant, and basically a wash once you spread that cost over the expected 3 - 5 (or longer) years of service you can expect from that computer.
It will REALLY be interesting to see what happens when/if
Samsung buys AMD.