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

#51
fynxer
Intel's cpu overprice is a choice they are making NOT forced on by the 14+++++++++ node

As before Intel will only drop price as a last resort.

Their 9700K and 9900K are at least 20-30% overpriced at the moment.

Problem is that AMD will not push Intel too hard on pricing at the moment because they also want to make good money.

What i hear from Sweden's biggest computer retailer is that AMD are about to make a big splash on Black Friday this year to own most of the cpu sales.

AMD will give Intel a hard time before X-MAS to screw with their 10000 series cpu release on CES.

The more customers AMD can take from Intel before X-MAS the harder it will be for Intel to gain momentum with their 10000 series cpu, it will be extra hard going in to low sale season Q1 2020 to pull of any major sales figures with their new 10000 series cpu series.

If Intel's sales are really bad before X-MAS it could lead to overstock of Intel 9000 series cpu's forcing Intel to push back 10000 Series to Q2 2020 to have time to clear 9000 series stock.
Posted on Reply
#52
Midland Dog
ratirt, post: 4104404, member: 165024"
Oh man you have no idea. When I red 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 :)
sorry but gunna have to call you out on this one, legit every benchathon intel wins, every hof entry in the top 3 is intel nv and the only place ive seen amd cpus win hands down is legit cinebench
Posted on Reply
#53
biffzinker
Midland Dog, post: 4104580, member: 168254"
sorry but gunna have to call you out on this one, legit every benchathon intel wins, every hof entry in the top 3 is intel nv and the only place ive seen amd cpus win hands down is legit cinebench
If you say so
Posted on Reply
#54
xkm1948
With all my love for AMD CPU, especially their Threadripper lines, I kinda agree with Intel on this one.

Been doing quite a lot of R&D on the lab TR platform. I must say although AMD is providing top notch hardware per dollar, their software support leaves a lot to be desired. It takes software and hardware support to make a good ecosystem.

This is just for professional use. I have yet to move to TR for gaming so I cannot say regarding the gaming part.
Posted on Reply
#55
Forde
As someone who has a 9900k and a 3800x... this isn't wrong, but positioning the 9700k as a strong proc isn't going to end well in 3 years time.
Posted on Reply
#56
svan71
Unlike Intel engineers the past 5 years, most people don't sit and game all day.
Posted on Reply
#57
Dragonsmonk
xkm1948, post: 4104602, member: 50521"
With all my love for AMD CPU, especially their Threadripper lines, I kinda agree with Intel on this one.

Been doing quite a lot of R&D on the lab TR platform. I must say although AMD is providing top notch hardware per dollar, their software support leaves a lot to be desired. It takes software and hardware support to make a good ecosystem.

This is just for professional use. I have yet to move to TR for gaming so I cannot say regarding the gaming part.
You mean since none of the software devs bother to optimize for more than Intel?

Well that may be changing soon, but to blame AMD for that is an interesting approach :)
Posted on Reply
#58
Mephis
Dragonsmonk, post: 4104633, member: 110388"
You mean since none of the software devs bother to optimize for more than Intel?

Well that may be changing soon, but to blame AMD for that is an interesting approach :)
Who would you like him to fault?

Intel? - are we going to fault them for having the dominant position in the market?

Developers? - of course they are going to optimize for Intel over AMD. Again, this is where market share comes in.

Also he is taking about support directly from Intel and AMD not just developers. Intel has a much bigger support system for their clients than AMD does. I rember seeing posts on the interwebs when the first Epyc CPU's were launched talking about how major corporations were looking to buy AMD, but decided against it because AMD either didn't have the ability to or didn't want to let the customers get time with engineers and or architects.
Posted on Reply
#59
xkm1948
Well our lab ARE part of the developers that are trying to optimize our specific applications for AMD's Zen arc.

To phrase it better: when specific programming error occurs that are not listed in AMD's technical whitebook, contacting AMD tech support is useless. As their support have 0 support for developers. Most of the time users are left to trail and error all by themselves.
Posted on Reply
#60
Darmok N Jalad
xkm1948, post: 4104602, member: 50521"
With all my love for AMD CPU, especially their Threadripper lines, I kinda agree with Intel on this one.

Been doing quite a lot of R&D on the lab TR platform. I must say although AMD is providing top notch hardware per dollar, their software support leaves a lot to be desired. It takes software and hardware support to make a good ecosystem.

This is just for professional use. I have yet to move to TR for gaming so I cannot say regarding the gaming part.
Mephis, post: 4104648, member: 186806"
Who would you like him to fault?

Intel? - are we going to fault them for having the dominant position in the market?

Developers? - of course they are going to optimize for Intel over AMD. Again, this is where market share comes in.

Also he is taking about support directly from Intel and AMD not just developers. Intel has a much bigger support system for their clients than AMD does. I rember seeing posts on the interwebs when the first Epyc CPU's were launched talking about how major corporations were looking to buy AMD, but decided against it because AMD either didn't have the ability to or didn't want to let the customers get time with engineers and or architects.
I’m not sure if this is still true, but I know in the past, Intel compilers had much to do with this performance optimization. In the same manner, nvidia works with developers to optimize their titles for performance. Intel and nvidia dictate the standards, essentially. AMD seems to take the “open” route, like with OpenCL and AMD64 support, and they partner through custom silicon designs. AMD needs a raw performance advantage because they don’t dictate standards or optimize software like the competition. Not saying that is a good thing, but it seems like the different approaches get us these results.
Posted on Reply
#61
Mephis
Darmok N Jalad, post: 4104662, member: 170588"
I’m not sure if this is still true, but I know in the past, Intel compilers had much to do with this performance optimization. In the same manner, nvidia works with developers to optimize their titles for performance. Intel and nvidia dictate the standards, essentially. AMD seems to take the “open” route, like with OpenCL and AMD64 support, and they partner through custom silicon designs. AMD needs a raw performance advantage because they don’t dictate standards or optimize software like the competition. Not saying that is a good thing, but it seems like the different approaches get us these results.
I agree to an extent with that, except for one point. AMD64 is not and never was an open standard. You need a license from AMD to implement it. Intel got that from them as part of deal that opened up Intel's parents to AMD in exchange for AMD's patents. But you and I couldn't design a cpu using it, the way we could with RISC-V.
Posted on Reply
#62
xkm1948
"Open Everything" is a wonderful scheme: basically it is letting everyone else do the R&D for you. Kinda lazy approach TBH. Not particularly fond of this mode. Had tons of trouble back in the days writing programs hoping to use OpenCL on the Fiji arc. TONS of problems.
Posted on Reply
#63
Tomgang
Shut up and take my intel money...while i spend my real money on a Ryzen 9 3950X. In your face intel:nutkick:

So what do i want. Hmm 8 Intels cores or 12 AMD cores for the same price or how about 16 Intels cores for about twice as much money for what an 3950X will cost.

Thanks but no thanks intel. Intel might win in most games but not by that much and besides that AMD wins in almost every thing else. All from price to performance and raw power to power consuption. Just see with Intels comet lake with up to 125 watt for just base clock and amd 16 cores is just 105 watt with 6 core more.

I can easy live with losing 1-15 % gaming performance over to get twice the cores over I9 9900K for not so much more money and to half the price of I9 9960X. 3950X is really the best all around CPU for those that want a gaming CPU that still pack a punch in workstation and converting load. So 3950X is my CPU of choise. Intel can keep there 14 NM+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ or how many they are up to now:kookoo:

This one goes to intel: This Is So Sad Alexa Play Despacito
Posted on Reply
#64
juiseman
fynxer, post: 4104573, member: 103789"
Intel's cpu overprice is a choice they are making NOT forced on by the 14+++++++++ node
Incorrect; they are upto [LEFT]14++++++++++ now. No big deal; just forgot 1 more +....lol...[/LEFT]
Posted on Reply
#65
Nkd
yeeeeman, post: 4104439, member: 127591"
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?
This! Company I work for always tells me one thing. Respect your competition, don't talk shit about them. Heck we don't even mention competition when we actually show value in our product why its better. If you know your product is better you don't need to talk down competition and invest more time in them.

Tomgang, post: 4104679, member: 154607"
Shut up and take my intel money...while i spend my real money on a Ryzen 9 3950X. In your face intel:nutkick:

So what do i want. Hmm 8 Intels cores or 12 AMD cores for the same price or how about 16 Intels cores for about twice as much money for what an 3950X will cost.

Thanks but no thanks intel. Intel might win in most games but not by that much and besides that AMD wins in almost every thing else. All from price to performance and raw power to power consuption. Just see with Intels comet lake with up to 125 watt for just base clock and amd 16 cores is just 105 watt with 6 core more.

I can easy live with losing 1-15 % gaming performance over to get twice the cores over I9 9900K for not so much more money and to half the price of I9 9960X. 3950X is really the best all around CPU for those that want a gaming CPU that still pack a punch in workstation and converting load. So 3950X is my CPU of choise. Intel can keep there 14 NM+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ or how many they are up to now:kookoo:

This one goes to intel: This Is So Sad Alexa Play Despacito
3950x might not be a bad chip for gaming. Trust me. Turn on game mode, it will likely disable one Chip and now you have the top bin chip boosting way higher, with 8 cores and SMT. I did this on my 3900x and I was boosting way higher on my cores in gaming. But now 3950x will have the upper hand since you get 8 cores that are top binned lol. Best of both worlds. It will be fun to see how it performs with game mode.
Posted on Reply
#66
Easo
Oh yeah Intel, I am so going to buy something noticably more expensive because 1-5%.
There is this thing called real life, in which absolute majority does not have the TOP product, but a more mainstream one. And there AMD wins and you lose. It is just that simple.
Go glue your 10nm together instead...
Posted on Reply
#67
juiseman
Real question here; what is AMD's "official" description of game mode; does it disable cores or SMT (hyper threading) or is it
just a turbo thing? Why do you have to restart every timer before enabling\disabling it? Why cant it be done in windows?
Posted on Reply
#68
Tomgang
Nkd, post: 4104704, member: 42675"
This! Company I work for always tells me one thing. Respect your competition, don't talk shit about them. Heck we don't even mention competition when we actually show value in our product why its better. If you know your product is better you don't need to talk down competition and invest more time in them.



3950x might not be a bad chip for gaming. Trust me. Turn on game mode, it will likely disable one Chip and now you have the top bin chip boosting way higher, with 8 cores and SMT. I did this on my 3900x and I was boosting way higher on my cores in gaming. But now 3950x will have the upper hand since you get 8 cores that are top binned lol. Best of both worlds. It will be fun to see how it performs with game mode.
Yeah 3950X shut have binned chiplets and the highest boost clocks in one pack. Shut give the best gaming performance, while still pack a mean punch to workstation and such load. Ad some good memory and it shut be a winner for best overall CPU. The best mix of gaming and workload. Going to ad some G.skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-3600MHz CL14-15-15-35 1.40V 32 GB kit with Samsung B-die memory and try with a bit higher voltage to either get maybe like 3733 MHz and/or lower timings. That shut be a winning setup as Ryzen likes high clock and low timings on memory.
Posted on Reply
#69
GreiverBlade
very compelling .... i guess my end of year buylist will be ... dyed ... in .... red


sidenote ... when will they push a microcode patch to patch the patch they patched to disable OC on K CPU on Win10 ... because i am still waiting .... i set the OC to 4.4ghz but it never goes above 3.9ghz, well, at last it doesn't BSOD anymore because of that tho ...
Posted on Reply
#70
dyonoctis
xkm1948, post: 4104678, member: 50521"
"Open Everything" is a wonderful scheme: basically it is letting everyone else do the R&D for you. Kinda lazy approach TBH. Not particularly fond of this mode. Had tons of trouble back in the days writing programs hoping to use OpenCL on the Fiji arc. TONS of problems.
How hard/costly developing an API/compiler is ? My knowledge on compilers is limited, but I know that CUDA became dominant because of the support that Nvidia was able to provide. But can AMD really play catch up ? Even Apple abandoned open cl, and made metal, wich makes GPGPU more cluttered than before. I wonder how developers would react if another api appeared...
Posted on Reply
#71
R-T-B
Company says competitor good, but their stuff better. In other breaking news, water is too wet says man, who drowns. Tune in for more at 11.
Posted on Reply
#72
Muser99
Intel your CPUs maybe a tad faster than AMD but your security is NOT up to standard. There are still major flaws in the Skylake-based architecture used in all of your 14nm-based CPUs which require a hardware fix by your own admission. So Intel get off your "high horse" before you get kicked off and focus your attention on a new architecture and desktop CPUs fit for the the 2020's. You are peddling a decade old architecture riddled with security issues. Marketing and PR will not fix the facts!
Posted on Reply
#73
Vya Domus
Darmok N Jalad, post: 4104662, member: 170588"
I’m not sure if this is still true, but I know in the past, Intel compilers had much to do with this performance optimization.
You know what's ironic ? Intel's compilers are notorious for applying optimizations that are detrimental to correctness and generate code that can have all sorts of bizarre undefined behavior because they have some flags set on by default. You heard that right, their compilers will prioritize speed over everything else by default, let's just say that if you want IEEE standards out of the box you're not going to get that with an Intel compiler. No real professional coder will jump on their compilers and let them wreck havoc, especially if they need this for scientific computing for example.
Posted on Reply
#74
Totally
dyonoctis, post: 4104406, member: 111394"
I guess Puget system don't know how to do benchmark then.

That Intel mouthpiece punctuated just about every sentence with some derivative of "for gaming." Feel like Techpowerup dropped the ball there by not reflecting that in the title. Which should have read

"Intel Says AMD Did a Great Job (with Ryzen 3000), But Intel CPUs are Still Better...for gaming"
Posted on Reply
#75
Vulcansheart
Intel has a lot of work to do to get their edge back. AMD is a direct threat now, and the consumers know it no matter how much Intel tries to shrug it off. I switched to the red team this year with a budget 2600X gaming build (my first ever AMD build from scratch), so Intel has a couple years to get their cards right before I do a CPU/mobo refresh and look at their lineup as an option.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment