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
"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."
114 Comments on Intel Says AMD Did a Great Job (with Ryzen 3000), But Intel CPUs are Still Better
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
9900k
www.amazon.com/Intel-i9-9900K-Desktop-Processor-Unlocked/dp/B005404P9I/
$495
3800X
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;
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.
Sure you have to OC it. If you want the CPU to keep up with the rest of the pack.
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.