Monday, December 9th 2019

Intel Marketing Claims i5-9600KF Better than 3800X, i3-9350KF Better than 3600X

Intel marketing is at it again, making sweeping performance claims about its embattled 9th generation Core processors against AMD's 3rd generation Ryzen. In a recent press conference in China, the company was shown claiming that its mid-tier 6-core/6-thread Core i5-9600KF is a "better" processor than AMD's 8-core/16-thread Ryzen 7 3800X. This claim is hard to defend with gaming, when even the "slower" 3700X is seen performing within 1% of the i5-9600K (identical CPU specs to the i5-9600KF) at gaming, and 22 percent faster at CPU tests, beating the i9-9900K in quite a few multi-threaded tests.

The marketing slide makes four key claims: 1. that Intel processors are faster in "real-world" use-cases (gaming, home/office, light content-creation), ; 2. that with boost-frequencies reaching 4.60 GHz, the higher IPC of these chips benefit gaming; 3. that the K-series chips easily overclock to 5.00 GHz yielding even more performance; and 4. that Intel processors have "smooth and stable drivers" compared to AMD. As if that wasn't bad enough, the slide claims that the 4-core/4-thread Core i3-9350KF is "better" than the 6-core/12-thread Ryzen 5 3600X, and the entry-level i3-9100F being better than the 6-core/6-thread Ryzen 5 3500. This incident closely follows its September gaffe that sought to sourgrape AMD's HEDT creator performance leadership by discrediting its lead in certain applications by claiming they don't reflect "real world usage." Making Intel's test relevance claims comically wrong was the fact that it used app usage data gathered exclusively from notebooks.
Sources: Baidu Tieba Forums, WCCFTech
Add your own comment

75 Comments on Intel Marketing Claims i5-9600KF Better than 3800X, i3-9350KF Better than 3600X

#26
ST.o.CH
btarunr
4. that Intel processors have "smooth and stable drivers" compared to AMD.
From my personal experience my 1800x has been stable since I've updated the drives and has more performance now than when I bought it back in 2017.
Posted on Reply
#27
PanicLake
Vayra86
Intel = laughing stock bash in 3.2.1...

For some substance on this topic...


Its quite an interesting comparison to make and actually, Intel isn't entirely wrong here. In games where the thread count matters (Kingdom Come Deliverance is a good example) Ryzen easily gets 25-30% higher FPS peaks. Yet in for example AC you see the 9350K consistently on top (and not just a little bit!), and taken from all games, there are a few more examples where the Intel option is still leading. Pretty interesting.

But, kids, don't buy quad cores no more k?

Different setting? As you can see the left side has some kind of fog...
Posted on Reply
#28
candle_86
Well they are entitled to their opinion, it's wrong but they are entitled to it. This reminds me of back in the day when Athlon XP came out and beat Intel in everything except quake 3 eninge games, and Intel held onto that as proof and is worse. Same story different decade. History has repeated itself

AMD K5 = PHENOM (to late, hot and bad value)
AMD K6 = Phenom II (competed with older series quite well)
AMD K6-2 = AMD FX (good bang for buck but pushed to the limit and slower than compitior except in a few tests)
AMD K6-3 = RYZEN 1000 (performance parity forced Intel to make a move)
ATHLON = RYZEN 2000 (competes in most tasks and better bang for buck)
ATHLON XP = RYZEN 3000 (Intel only ahead in limited tests mostly games and light office work)

If the trend continues the next ryzen will be the second coming of Athlon 64.
Posted on Reply
#29
Chrispy_
If Intel are talking about overclocking, perhaps they should be reminded about their arbitrary Z-series tax that adds $50+ to the cost of overclocking over an equivalent AMD system since decent B450 boards with excellent VRM cooling headroom are both plentiful and reasonably priced.

Also, whilst there is typically more overclocking headroom on Intel 9th gen than Zen2, you will need more expensive cooling to deal with the 200W power consumption that 5GHz requires on 14nm++. Meanwhile, the 3800X with it's decent quad-heatpipe air cooler INCLUDED FOR FREE will run that 3800X just fine, saving you $100 over the cooler necessary to handle Intel's 200W power draw.

If we're going to add $150 to the cost of overclocking an Intel 9600KF, we're fast-approaching 3900X price territory. I would like to see intel try and justify their 9600KF against a 3900X....
Posted on Reply
#30
rippie
intel's own benchmarks with their "real world" angle
covered by adoredTv

adoredTv

Nothing, absolutely NOTHING should be taken for any form of seriousness coming from intel and their bought over benchmarks XPRT suites, and their idiot real-world idiocrazy (movie pun intended)
Bring in independent reviewers, with benchmarks that matter.
Posted on Reply
#31
moob
Turmania
The only part I agree with all this is the system stability and drivers more being upto date. Which in my case is a very serious and very important factor.
Like everyone else, I haven't had any "stability" or "driver" issues with my 3700X. I suppose the only real "problem" was that I wasn't hitting boost clocks (just barely), but that was fixed with 1.0.0.4B anyway.

In any case, it'll be interesting to see how well those Intel chips age. CPUs aren't GPUs, and I think many of us hold onto them a lot longer (had my 3770K for 6 years but I've swapped GPUs 3 times in that span). If this is anything to go by, time won't be kind as games change:
Posted on Reply
#32
Xx Tek Tip xX
rippie
Nothing, absolutely NOTHING should be taken for any form of seriousness coming from intel
And everything should be taken seriously from AdoredTV? You linked a well known leaker than spills nothing but BS.
Posted on Reply
#33
freeagent
200w isn’t hard to deal with if you already have the cooling for it. Noctua isn’t the only game in town, no need to spend 100 bucks. Why would you take a top shelf cpu like the 3800X and then put it on a B450? A cut down stripped down chipset. Makes no sense.

As for drivers, AMD has a history with that, so because you have no problem with system drivers, doesn’t mean others don’t or haven’t. Since moving back to intel years ago, it has been smooth sailing for me on that front.

And then there is price. For a top end AMD cpu, and a good 570 board for it, you aren’t that far off from an upper end mainstream Intel system.

After Christmas I will be building new, and to be honest I could go either way. But I do know there is more to life than cinibench.
Posted on Reply
#34
moob
freeagent
Why would you take a top shelf cpu like the 3800X and then put it on a B450? A cut down stripped down chipset. Makes no sense.
Because the vast majority of people don't need the features of X570? I have a 3700X paired with a B450 board and I'm not missing anything.
Posted on Reply
#35
rippie
I would say the same if AMD showed some nice figures.
NOTHING absolutely nothing should be taken as fact from any company promoting their own products (directly or indirectly through bought companies).
Bring in the independent reviewers and independent benchmarks.

b.t.w. adored was right on a ton of stuff, so to call out his stuff as BS, well I think is shortsighted.
Posted on Reply
#36
Xx Tek Tip xX
freeagent
Why would you take a top shelf cpu like the 3800X and then put it on a B450? A cut down stripped down chipset. Makes no sense.
Why would you buy a value-orientated part to stick it in a high end board? Makes no sense.
Posted on Reply
#37
Chrispy_
freeagent
200w isn’t hard to deal with if you already have the cooling for it. Noctua isn’t the only game in town, no need to spend 100 bucks. Why would you take a top shelf cpu like the 3800X and then put it on a B450? A cut down stripped down chipset. Makes no sense.
Makes perfect sense for the exact people Intel's marketing team is targeting in this article - gamers and light content creators. Those people have ZERO need for PCIe 4.0 or the extra PCIe lanes of an X570 motherboard. All they need, in fact, are decent VRMs to handle PBO+ power draw, which is still under 150W even with a 3900X and a high-end X570 board. On a 3800X it's likely to need barely 125W.

Honestly, look at the feature set of B450 and tell me what X570 feature it is lacking that a gamer or light content-creator would give a damn about?
Posted on Reply
#38
freeagent
Xx Tek Tip xX
Why would you buy a value-orientated part to stick it in a high end board? Makes no sense.
What are you talking about?
Posted on Reply
#39
Chrispy_
freeagent
What are you talking about?
This article is specifically about stripped down, value-oriented parts - the i5-9600KF and the i3-9350KF.

There's very little point spending big money on a flagship z-series board if you're going to dump a cheapo i3 or i5 into it unless you're saving for an upgrade later (which is a dumb plan on Intel platforms as they abandon sockets almost every time they release a new generation rebrand their 14nm products)
Posted on Reply
#40
Turmania
I won't buy a new cpu right now but if I did as an ITX user. I would get an i5 9600kf for 185 plus Asus rog z390i strix for 200. Add a 50 usd cooler and I can hit all cores 4.7 ghz with lower voltages even in stock voltages.
435 usd total.

Ryzen5 3600x costs 225 plus Asus rog x570i strix 250. Nevermind a cpu cooler thathis 475 usd total. 4.4 ghz all cores? No way? Overclock 4.2? Probably but very high power draw and heat. Plus million of issues with super slow boot times and at least 500 mhz slower system with more price in total, more heat and more power draw and probably more noise cpu cooler.... if you need the threads I do not debate it Ryzen5 is good but for gaming no way not even close to Intel.even Steve from GamersNexus said stop treating AMD as underdogs and do not let them get away with false advertisings....
Posted on Reply
#41
Cheeseball
Not a Potato
Turmania
Ryzen5 3600x costs 225 plus Asus rog x570i strix 250. Nevermind a cpu cooler thathis 475 usd total. 4.4 ghz all cores? No way? Overclock 4.2? Probably but very high power draw and heat. Plus million of issues with super slow boot times and at least 500 mhz slower system with more price in total, more heat and more power draw and probably more noise cpu cooler.... if you need the threads I do not debate it Ryzen5 is good but for gaming no way not even close to Intel.even Steve from GamersNexus said stop treating AMD as underdogs and do not let them get away with false advertisings....
You can get Ryzen 5 3600 for $189.00 off US Amazon at the moment. Grab a good Zen 2-ready B450 mATX motherboard (that has a ready AGESA 1.0.0.4AB BIOS) for $89.99 and you should be able to hit boost clocks well enough.

The only problem (and this is not AMD's issue) is that there aren't any good mATX X570 boards. Please don't suggest ASRock's X570M Pro4 as the latest BIOS is trash, so much that I had to return it once because thought the board was defective and then find out it really is the BIOS with the second.
Posted on Reply
#42
Tsukiyomi91
typical of Intel... still beating their old & tired race horse & expecting to win against AMD's well-treated, matured, do it all horse.

That said, R5 3600 + updated B450 with good VRM design is still a good deal for anyone. You don't really need an X570 unless you're planning on getting a R9 3950X. Those pair are better off that way.
Posted on Reply
#43
freeagent
Chrispy_
This article is specifically about stripped down, value-oriented parts - the i5-9600KF and the i3-9350KF.

There's very little point spending big money on a flagship z-series board if you're going to dump a cheapo i3 or i5 into it unless you're saving for an upgrade later (which is a dumb plan on Intel platforms as they abandon sockets almost every time they release a new generation rebrand their 14nm products)
Well that makes sense. Blond moment for me. I did actually consider a 9400f and small matx mobo with Wi-Fi. because it would mop the floor with my current 3770K. I almost pulled the trigger a couple of times, but I'm not ready to say good bye to overclocking just yet. I almost pulled the trigger a few times on a Ryzen setup too, both second and third gen. Again, not ready to give up on overclocking just yet.. and honestly their pins really grind my gears. If you have ever folded a row of pins then you know what I'm talking about. Whoever comes up with a chip that can oc next wins my money lol. And I don't mean all core boost speed.. I mean real overclocking. But it seems that is becoming a thing of the past too. Where I live it gets cold for a good chunk of the year, it would be a shame to let those cool ambients and my many CFM's go to waste.
Posted on Reply
#44
candle_86
Turmania
I won't buy a new cpu right now but if I did as an ITX user. I would get an i5 9600kf for 185 plus Asus rog z390i strix for 200. Add a 50 usd cooler and I can hit all cores 4.7 ghz with lower voltages even in stock voltages.
435 usd total.

Ryzen5 3600x costs 225 plus Asus rog x570i strix 250. Nevermind a cpu cooler thathis 475 usd total. 4.4 ghz all cores? No way? Overclock 4.2? Probably but very high power draw and heat. Plus million of issues with super slow boot times and at least 500 mhz slower system with more price in total, more heat and more power draw and probably more noise cpu cooler.... if you need the threads I do not debate it Ryzen5 is good but for gaming no way not even close to Intel.even Steve from GamersNexus said stop treating AMD as underdogs and do not let them get away with false advertisings....
Ryzen 5 3500x 118 USD at alli express

You where saying?
Posted on Reply
#45
heflys20
Just wow...This coupled with the re-release of 22nm products. Anyway...
Posted on Reply
#46
ERazer
Turmania
stop treating AMD as underdogs and do not let them get away with false advertisings....
Tell me again who has majority CPU market share?
Posted on Reply
#47
Totally
dj-electric
Everyone is being mad at Intel's marketing for telling lies to people,
But when my head and shoulders shampoo claims to vanish almost all dandruff and fails, nobody comes to my rescue.
Ofc no one is coming to your rescue, there are like 100 other brands of shampoo you could switch to. That's the top of the list of reasons to not come to the rescue behind "A bottle of shampoo is like what? 5 bucks."
Posted on Reply
#49
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
dj-electric
Everyone is being mad at Intel's marketing for telling lies to people,
But when my head and shoulders shampoo claims to vanish almost all dandruff and fails, nobody comes to my rescue.
If you bought that shampoo for $250/bottle and it didn't turn your locks to match a Victoria's Secret model, you should drag P&G to the Hague.
Posted on Reply
#50
GoldenX
Holy cow, they are in complete denial.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment