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

#101
Redwoodz
Of course AMD's ecosystem is not up to par compared to Intel...who have had over 80% marketshare for the last 15 yrs. It won't take very long to catch up though...that Ryzen money fixes all sorts of short-comings.
Posted on Reply
#102
Midland Dog
biffzinker, post: 4104592, member: 163731"
If you say so

oh yeah coz ln2 guys are benching photoshop
Posted on Reply
#103
dyonoctis
Midland Dog, post: 4107434, member: 168254"
oh yeah coz ln2 guys are benching photoshop
You don't even know what is puget system do you ? those guys aren't overclockers, there are system builder for professional (content creation, science). They don't do overclocking at all, because they do rather ship a stock but stable system, instead of trying to get more % with an oc that may or may not be stable.
Posted on Reply
#104
Midland Dog
dyonoctis, post: 4107713, member: 111394"
You don't even know what is puget system do you ? those guys aren't overclockers, there are system builder for professional (content creation, science). They don't do overclocking at all, because they do rather ship a stock but stable system, instead of trying to get more % with an oc that may or may not be stable.
lmao ur an idiot, i specifically said benchathon, i dont care what puget does in the slightest, if they were doing xoc benching my point would be proven even harder

also the 3800x is pathetic compared to the 9900k in ur supplied bench a year late and still not as fast*, vega and 1080ti all over again
*1 point in a test that i dont care about, 1 point vs 10 more fps ill take the fps and live with 1 point less at STOCK thanks, OC for OC a 5ghz 8 core skylake trashes any oc ryzen 3000 can muster
Posted on Reply
#105
lexluthermiester
Midland Dog, post: 4108892, member: 168254"
also the 3800x is pathetic compared to the 9900k
Your understanding needs improvement. Either your understanding of the benchmarks is lacking or your understanding of the definition of the word "pathetic" is lacking.
Posted on Reply
#106
dyonoctis
Midland Dog, post: 4108892, member: 168254"
lmao ur an idiot, i specifically said benchathon, i dont care what puget does in the slightest, if they were doing xoc benching my point would be proven even harder

also the 3800x is pathetic compared to the 9900k in ur supplied bench a year late and still not as fast*, vega and 1080ti all over again
*1 point in a test that i dont care about, 1 point vs 10 more fps ill take the fps and live with 1 point less at STOCK thanks, OC for OC a 5ghz 8 core skylake trashes any oc ryzen 3000 can muster
I just told you that puget doesnt do world record benchmark or any overclocking at all, those results are from stock speed, meaning that there is no overclocking, they didn't mees with the speed in the bios, nor in ryzen master. Thoses results are from references clocks.
Posted on Reply
#107
Midland Dog
dyonoctis, post: 4108910, member: 111394"
I just told you that puget doesnt do world record benchmark or any overclocking at all, those results are from stock speed, meaning that there is no overclocking, they didn't mees with the speed in the bios, nor in ryzen master. Thoses results are from references clocks.
and intel barely loses while having the headroom to push all threads up another soild few hundred mhz, the ryzen stands to loose a few mhz on an all core oc, skylake still wins

lexluthermiester, post: 4108901, member: 134537"
Your understanding needs improvement. Either your understanding of the benchmarks is lacking or your understanding of the definition of the word "pathetic" is lacking.
1 point more, 1 node smaller, 1 year late and the same price, pathetic
Posted on Reply
#108
lexluthermiester
Midland Dog, post: 4108912, member: 168254"
1 point more, 1 node smaller, 1 year late and the same price, pathetic
Ah, I see! It's a lack of understanding context. So let's examine;
9900k
https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i9-9900K-Desktop-Processor-Unlocked/dp/B005404P9I/
$495

3800X
https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-3800X-16-Thread-Processor/dp/B07SXMZLPJ/
$399

Yup, that's the exact same price....

Now let's compare benchmarks shall we? Since TPU has yet to review the 3800X(unless I missed it) we'll go with the 3700X review, just to be fair;
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-3700x/22.html
Wow! The 9900k beat it by 3%!!! Gee wiz, the 9900k is sooo kicking the 3700X in the nads....

Sarcasm aside, the only thing "pathetic" is your inability to do math and understanding of reality. The 3700X easily matches the 9900k in every metric but one, overclocking. It's nearly $150 less expensive and performs within 3% of said 9900k. Given that the 3800X is faster than the 3700X, it doesn't take a genius to conclude that the 3800X is very likely bang on with the 9900k for nearly $100 less. Yup, I'll take your brand of "pathetic" all day, every day thank you very much.
Posted on Reply
#109
biffzinker
I chalk it up to being immature if he is 19. The immature responses to criticism suggest, yes.
Posted on Reply
#110
ratirt
biffzinker, post: 4108963, member: 163731"
I chalk it up to being immature if he is 19. The immature responses to criticism suggest, yes.
True that. I still don't get people. Where do they get this stuff from? It's not possible to be so damn blind. The 9900K is "the one" for some people. I simply just can't believe it :)
Posted on Reply
#111
Midland Dog
lexluthermiester, post: 4108956, member: 134537"
Ah, I see! It's a lack of understanding context. So let's examine;
9900k
https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i9-9900K-Desktop-Processor-Unlocked/dp/B005404P9I/
$495

3800X
https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-3800X-16-Thread-Processor/dp/B07SXMZLPJ/
$399

Yup, that's the exact same price....

Now let's compare benchmarks shall we? Since TPU has yet to review the 3800X(unless I missed it) we'll go with the 3700X review, just to be fair;
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-3700x/22.html
Wow! The 9900k beat it by 3%!!! Gee wiz, the 9900k is sooo kicking the 3700X in the nads....

Sarcasm aside, the only thing "pathetic" is your inability to do math and understanding of reality. The 3700X easily matches the 9900k in every metric but one, overclocking. It's nearly $150 less expensive and performs within 3% of said 9900k. Given that the 3800X is faster than the 3700X, it doesn't take a genius to conclude that the 3800X is very likely bang on with the 9900k for nearly $100 less. Yup, I'll take your brand of "pathetic" all day, every day thank you very much.
i stand corrected on pricing but i still dont see any of the ryzen chips being worth it, if intel brought out a quad core with twice the ipc of skylake i would by that over any ryzen ever, i dont care for core counts, because most programs would gain more from 1ghz extra clocks than 2 more cores

Midland Dog, post: 4109299, member: 168254"
i stand corrected on pricing but i still dont see any of the ryzen chips being worth it, if intel brought out a quad core with twice the ipc of skylake i would by that over any ryzen ever, i dont care for core counts, because most programs would gain more from 1ghz extra clocks than 2 more cores
lmao u just sold me on intel %110, oc potential is ALL that i care about, i buy a chip for the most the sillicon can happily do not the most that a company says it "should" do
Posted on Reply
#112
ratirt
Midland Dog, post: 4109299, member: 168254"
i stand corrected on pricing but i still dont see any of the ryzen chips being worth it, if intel brought out a quad core with twice the ipc of skylake i would by that over any ryzen ever, i dont care for core counts, because most programs would gain more from 1ghz extra clocks than 2 more cores


lmao u just sold me on intel %110, oc potential is ALL that i care about, i buy a chip for the most the sillicon can happily do not the most that a company says it "should" do
If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts. How would Intel accomplish that? Twice the IPC of skylake? Actually, most applications now use more than 2 cores I think around 4 now or even more. Knowing the current state of CPU industry and how the frequency of processors is crumbling now and it will get worse, the cores, in a CPU, are the only way to guarantee performance boost.

Sure you have to OC it. If you want the CPU to keep up with the rest of the pack.
Posted on Reply
#113
Midland Dog
ratirt, post: 4109307, member: 165024"
If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts. How would Intel accomplish that? Twice the IPC of skylake? Actually, most applications now use more than 2 cores I think around 4 now or even more. Knowing the current state of CPU industry and how the frequency of processors is crumbling now and it will get worse, the cores, in a CPU, are the only way to guarantee performance boost.

Sure you have to OC it. If you want the CPU to keep up with the rest of the pack.
4 or more lmao like i said id take the quad core, cores DO NOT scale infinitely at all, winning the MT war means having the most powerful individual cores to make up mt perf, making your core 2% faster scales to all of the cores, %2 per core on a 16 core means + 32% overall
Posted on Reply
#114
ratirt
Midland Dog, post: 4109314, member: 168254"
4 or more lmao like i said id take the quad core, cores DO NOT scale infinitely at all, winning the MT war means having the most powerful individual cores to make up mt perf, making your core 2% faster scales to all of the cores, %2 per core on a 16 core means + 32% overall
Sure but what's the point if your previous statement was
Midland Dog, post: 4109299, member: 168254"
i dont care for core counts, because most programs would gain more from 1ghz extra clocks than 2 more cores
Make up your mind.
and no it would not be 32% because application may scale only for 6 cores. That depends on the application. The problem with your 1ghz more is that the 5Ghz is basically maximum for silicon. Each node shrink will not give any improvement in frequency but it will degrade the frequency. You won't be able to hit 5Ghz. The only way to increase performance is with the IPC increase which is tough to accomplish. Core number is easier (AMD done it) but the downside is utilization of the cores by an application.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment