Monday, August 26th 2019

Intel Says AMD Did a Great Job (with Ryzen 3000), But Intel CPUs are Still Better

It is no secret that AMD has made a huge success with its long awaited "Zen" CPUs and returned to PC market stronger than ever. Intel however has neglected AMD's presence and only recently admitted what an impact AMD made. At this year's Gamescon, Intel started a new campaign against AMD with a point that Intel's CPUs are still better performers with "real world benchmarks" backing that claim.

"A year ago when we introduced the i9 9900K," says Intel's Troy Severson, "it was dubbed the fastest gaming CPU in the world. And I can honestly say nothing's changed. It's still the fastest gaming CPU in the world. I think you've heard a lot of press from the competition recently, but when we go out and actually do the real-world testing, not the synthetic benchmarks, but doing real-world testing of how these games perform on our platform, we stack the 9900K against the Ryzen 9 3900X. They're running a 12-core part and we're running an eight-core," he adds. "I'll be very honest, very blunt, say, hey, they've done a great job closing the gap, but we still have the highest performing CPUs in the industry for gaming, and we're going to maintain that edge."
Here Intel describes that AMD wins in synthetic workloads, while its CPUs win in a real world usage scenarios for applications like Microsoft Office, Adobe Lightroom, Photoshop and more. While they claim to posses better overall productivity performance, Intel also claims few other trophies in areas like gaming, where Core i7-9700K "is on par or better" than AMD Ryzen 9 3900X across many games tested.
In our own testing, we found the claim about gaming performance to be true where Intel's Core i7-9700K did perform better than Ryzen 9 3900X. However when it comes to overall performance results that also includes many other tasks besides gaming, like productivity and science, the case is not proven. Sources: PCGamesN, WCCFTech
Add your own comment

114 Comments on Intel Says AMD Did a Great Job (with Ryzen 3000), But Intel CPUs are Still Better

#1
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
I find this funny, now intel's talking crap because they are stuck. Childish bs from them.
Posted on Reply
#2
laszlo
what else could they say to protect their over-priced cpu's ?
Posted on Reply
#3
ratirt
eidairaman1, post: 4104402, member: 40556"
I find this funny, now intel's talking crap because they are stuck. Childish bs from them.
Oh man you have no idea. When I read the first paragraph I literally fell of the chair :) What a ruse, Intel just can't stomach the fact that AMD products are just as good as theirs or even better. Real world benchmark from Intel. I see Intel likes to mess around with catchy frases and cheep tricks :)
Posted on Reply
#5
dyonoctis
I guess Puget system don't know how to do benchmark then.
Posted on Reply
#6
Chomiq
"Real world benchmarks" like the streaming benchmarks that Intel pushed on reviewers and now says that they aren't "real world" once they show improved performance with AMD?
Posted on Reply
#7
Crackong
3950x is coming, Ye know why . :)
Posted on Reply
#8
TheLostSwede
Ok, as someone that's been working for a company that was part of Bapco which makes Sysmark, I can tell you that this benchmark is tuned to perform better on Intel CPUs.
It has been this way since the start of Sysmark, so I wouldn't read anything into the results coming out of that benchmark.
Using that and claiming Intel performs better than AMD is a bunch of crap.

AMD and Nvidia (as well as VIA) were in fact a member companies at one point, but not any more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAPCo_consortium
Posted on Reply
#9
dj-electric
Commence 13 more pages of people who keep bashing each other for companies that don't care about them
Posted on Reply
#11
Chaitanya
dyonoctis, post: 4104406, member: 111394"
I guess Puget system don't know how to do benchmark then.

Unfortunately Adobe applications are heavily optimized for Intel especially likes of Premier and Lightroom(which cannot fully utilize multi-core CPUs). Unless Abode recodes its applications to be neutral towards CPUs and utilize multi-core CPUs effectively things arent going to change on that front.
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-H-264-Hardware-Acceleration-in-Adobe-Media-Encoder---Good-or-Bad-1211/
Posted on Reply
#12
Blueberries
They should be less concerned with convincing people their processors are 1-3% faster and more concerned with AMD's solution being 1-3% slower, with more threads, at a significantly lower price.
Posted on Reply
#13
GoldenX
Damage control much?
Maybe if they used all that money to get a decent product on time, they would not be this bad now.
Posted on Reply
#14
yeeeeman
I think this is quite unprofessional from their part. Sure, they have issues, but press like this makes them look even worse. Why do you need to say your product is better if it is indeed better?
Posted on Reply
#15
Vayra86
Yes, Intel. You are doing just fine.

Keep at it!
Posted on Reply
#16
ShurikN
What's the point of these slides, when Ryzen 3000 has been out for almost 2 months, and we've all seen how it performs especially in productivity, where it destroys everything Intel has to offer...
Sysmark uses REAL applications
*word, excel, powerpoint... those ones run on a Casio calculator...

That's just embarrassing.
Posted on Reply
#17
Lionheart
This made me chuckle more than it should have :laugh::slap:
Posted on Reply
#18
Hossein Almet
Per Intel's analysis, people shouldn't buy the 9920X, because it performs not as good in MS Office and Adobe Lr as the 9900K. What matters more in terms of real world benchmarks is connectivity, the ryzen 3000 offers more USB 3.2 Gen2, PCI-E 4.0 and, according to some motherboards, up to 6 SATA ports.
Posted on Reply
#19
Dexiefy
Intel in 1 word: Pathetic.
Posted on Reply
#20
Xaled
Intel's real face and personality.
Posted on Reply
#21
biffzinker
Crackong, post: 4104408, member: 185495"
3950x is coming, Ye know why . :)
Look out when that drops. Intel is just getting started with the bs excuses.
Posted on Reply
#22
LocutusH
Technically, they didnt say anything, that isnt true.

(without fan-bullshit, i also opted for a 3700X)
Posted on Reply
#23
Bwaze
But in those "Real World" tests 9900K has no advantage over 9700K - why did they make 8 core, 16 thread processor then, and are planning a 10 core, 20 thread one in beginning of 2020?

To say that the only thing that really uses many cores is Cinebench R20 is frankly pathetic. Who are they targeting with this information? The enthusiastic Microsoft Office extreme overclocking crowd?
Posted on Reply
#24
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Hey, I'm happy because we actually have competitors now. We, the consumers, win in this environment.
Posted on Reply
#25
Hardware Geek
I'ma get me a 9900k cause Intel would never lie about their products. /s
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment