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

#26
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
Next thing, Intel will issue another press release saying "my dad will fight your dad" - Stay tuned for more DrAmA
Posted on Reply
#27
PanicLake
The fun part to me is that the Ryzen 7 3700x compared to the i9 9900k costs 2/3 (66%) the price but it is only 3-4% slower in CPU relative performance and 5-7% slower in gaming performace.
A total win if you ask me!
Posted on Reply
#28
punani
laszlo, post: 4104403, member: 6256"
what else could they say to protect their over-priced cpu's ?
I find it funny that by these statements and boasts they believe they are creating confidence in their products. But for anyone in the business with a brain, the effect is the opposite.
Posted on Reply
#29
GeorgeMan
Key word: "gaming". I'd say low res hi fps gaming, competitive online only. For everything else they are completely blown.
Posted on Reply
#30
lexluthermiester
eidairaman1, post: 4104402, member: 40556"
I find this funny, now intel's talking crap because they are stuck. Childish bs from them.
I don't know that I would go so far as to call it "Childish" per se, but it is the typical marketing spiel.

@AleksandarK's conclusion about Intel's claim being only applicable to certain games is correct. Every review I've read from reputable sources show the same result. If you're gaming and have lots of money, go Intel. If you're doing literally anything else, regardless of budget, go AMD. If you want to game, but have a limited budget, go AMD. This is true as of the time of this comment.
Posted on Reply
#31
yotano211
FordGT90Concept, post: 4104483, member: 60463"
Hey, I'm happy because we actually have competitors now. We, the consumers, win in this environment.
hell yea, just 2 years ago I was on a laptop with 4 cores and now its 8 cores.
Posted on Reply
#32
Chomiq
FordGT90Concept, post: 4104483, member: 60463"
Hey, I'm happy because we actually have competitors now. We, the consumers, win in this environment.
Except Intel is stuck in their logic of "our product is the best for gaming and you WILL pay for it" and refuses to adjust their prices. We saw what? A single price drop of $20, only recently, on 9600K, since Zen 2 launched.
Posted on Reply
#33
Hyderz
As a consumer point of view, both current cpu offerings from both parties are good.
If you compare at price point, amd offers more cores and threads at $499 and is a damn good cpu for productivity that utilizes all those cores.
Intel on the other side their $499 cpu offers great cpu performance in the gaming side but The ryzen is no slouch when it comes to gaming as well.
Buy either platform and you will have a fast desktop.

Competition is great, as consumers we have more choices now. I just hope we can see slightly lower prices as ... $499 for mainstream high end cpu is rather steep :(
Posted on Reply
#34
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Chomiq, post: 4104511, member: 185703"
Except Intel is stuck in their logic of "our product is the best for gaming and you WILL pay for it" and refuses to adjust their prices. We saw what? A single price drop of $20, only recently, on 9600K, since Zen 2 launched.
2009-2017: ~$350 would only get you a 4c/8t processor from Intel
early 2017: AMD launched Ryzen 1700 for $329, an 8c/16t processor.
late 2017: Intel launched 8700K in response: 6c/12t for $360
early 2018: AMD launched 2700 for $300, an 8c/16t processor.
late 2018: Intel followed it up with a 9700K: 8c/8t for $374

Because of AMD, Intel went from 8 years of releasing the same damn 4c/8t processor over and over on smaller processes (saving them money) to 8c/8t in just two years...all for roughly the same price! We're getting double the processors from both vendors at no extra cost (actually less, because inflation)! Win for everyone! :D Except Intel. Who has been milking the market dry for over a decade.

My ~$425 spent in 2015 on the 6700K (4c/8t) goes twice as far at AMD and Intel because of AMD bringing the competition again.


I don't really care which you buy right now. They're both a good choice. The market finally has some balance again.
Posted on Reply
#35
employee24601
Wow, the smell of desperation from Intel is almost overpowering.

Intel wants my money, but AMD has earned it.
Posted on Reply
#36
TheGuruStud
This is like Intel going through the stages of grief lol
Posted on Reply
#37
Mephis
I don't understand how this is childish on Intel's part. All they did is point out that they still hold a small advantage in single thread. They said nothing about multi thread performance or performance per dollar or performance per watt. They did exactly what they should do. You take the area where you have and advantage and you market the hell out of it. AMD did it with Bulldozer (first 5ghz cpu, higher module counts) and they try and do it with their GPUs.

Did people really expect Intel to say "Ok guys, AMD put out great CPU's. Time to fold up shop, we are never going to sell another chop again."
Posted on Reply
#38
TheDeeGee
If they had any common sense they would have made the 10th Gen use the same socket.

But Intel logic will be Intel logic.
Posted on Reply
#39
LocutusH
Mephis, post: 4104527, member: 186806"
I don't understand how this is childish on Intel's part. All they did is point out that they still hold a small advantage in single thread. They said nothing about multi thread performance or performance per dollar or performance per watt. They did exactly what they should do. You take the area where you have and advantage and you market the hell out of it. AMD did it with Bulldozer (first 5ghz cpu, higher module counts) and they try and do it with their GPUs.

Did people really expect Intel to say "Ok guys, AMD put out great CPU's. Time to fold up shop, we are never going to sell another chop again."
Its just trendy to bash intel nowadays. Whether its logical or not.
AMD fanbois (playing with cinebench) can take revenge after all these years. Kind of understandable.

If i was only after gaming, i would have bought a 9700k. But didnt want a dead-end motherboard, that gets no more processors, so i ended up with 3700X. Wich is slower in games, by some percents. Which i can probably regain by overclocking the RAM and IF. End of story.
Posted on Reply
#40
XiGMAKiD
Yes yes yes your CPUs are great now get back to the lab and give us 10nm
Posted on Reply
#41
Turmania
Funny most teens won't know this but when AMD had the performance advantage in the single core days it was Intel who made core 2 duo and started core trends and took performance advantage.let me tell you this back then AMD was asking for more money.now after almost 2 decades of being no way near competitive they made a good progress. Underlining all this is that none of these companies are morally clean.
Posted on Reply
#42
TheGuruStud
Turmania, post: 4104536, member: 182201"
Funny most teens won't know this but when AMD had the performance advantage in the single core days it was Intel who made core 2 duo and started core trends and took performance advantage.let me tell you this back then AMD was asking for more money.now after almost 2 decades of being no way near competitive they made a good progress. Underlining all this is that none of these companies are morally clean.
Wut? Your info is pretty faulty.
Posted on Reply
#43
windwhirl
Bwaze, post: 4104476, member: 178959"
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?
Hey!! Those spreadsheets are stupidly complex and pretty much alive with data and macros! I need to overclock the crap out of the CPU to get things done in time /s
Posted on Reply
#44
Dragonsmonk
Turmania, post: 4104536, member: 182201"
Funny most teens won't know this but when AMD had the performance advantage in the single core days it was Intel who made core 2 duo and started core trends and took performance advantage.let me tell you this back then AMD was asking for more money.now after almost 2 decades of being no way near competitive they made a good progress. Underlining all this is that none of these companies are morally clean.
Be that as it may - the AMD from 20 years ago is nowhere near the same as it is today... I am glad to see that Intel is resorting to their usual shenanigans and that we finally have full competition.
Posted on Reply
#45
Redwoodz
Funny they didn't mention Security anywhere except in the fine print in their graphics which states" Benchmarks may not have been run with all current available security patches."
I wonder if they still win benches with all updates installed?
Posted on Reply
#46
dyonoctis
Turmania, post: 4104536, member: 182201"
Funny most teens won't know this but when AMD had the performance advantage in the single core days it was Intel who made core 2 duo and started core trends and took performance advantage.let me tell you this back then AMD was asking for more money.now after almost 2 decades of being no way near competitive they made a good progress. Underlining all this is that none of these companies are morally clean.
the Core 2 Duo wasn't intel first dual core, the pentium D was (two pentium 4 glued together), and AMD released (at least for reviewers) the athlon 64 x2 just a few weeks later (who was actually 2 core on the same die). But yes, since AMD had the performance crown, they asked for more money.

This article is giving some insight of the context of 2005, AMD and Intel had dual core in their mind for a long time, they just had to wait for the manufacturing process to mature before making them a reality:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1665
Posted on Reply
#47
64K
Poor Intel. I feel sorry for them...........

Not!

They were arrogant and greedy when on top for so many years. Charging for a 4 core 8 thread CPU what they should have been charging for a 6 core 12 thread CPU. Funny how they managed to do that after Ryzen came out. Putting crappy TIM under the heat spreader on their unlocked CPUs to save a few pennies instead of using solder. When overclockers complained about the poor overclocking potential without causing instability Intel's response was, "Then don't overclock".
Posted on Reply
#48
Darmok N Jalad
dyonoctis, post: 4104551, member: 111394"
the Core 2 Duo wasn't intel first dual core, the pentium D was (two pentium 4 glued together), and AMD released (at least for reviewers) the athlon 64 x2 just a few weeks later (who was actually 2 core on the same die). But yes, since AMD had the performance crown, they asked for more money.

This article is giving some insight of the context of 2005, AMD and Intel had dual core in their mind for a long time, they just had to wait for the manufacturing process to mature before making them a reality:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1665
Prescott was also a poor performing product, so Athlon64 was already a better product. Intel knew AMD was about to go dual-core, and they engineered the Pentium D using MCM. Core came along later as an evolution of Pentium M. Pricing usually isn’t as competitive when one product is clearly better, at least at the high end. It’s why nvidia sells $1200 GPUs.
Posted on Reply
#49
DeathtoGnomes
I'd like to know what intel considers "real world" or is this just some more intel trolling AMD again?
Posted on Reply
#50
lexluthermiester
DeathtoGnomes, post: 4104558, member: 151150"
I'd like to know what intel considers "real world" or is this just some more intel trolling AMD again?
It might be a bit trolling in addition to the marketing mumbo-jumbo.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment