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

#51
Berfs1
Intel is now bringing the most bullshit reasons ever to sell their CPUs. When Intel's CPUs are OVERCLOCKED, then yes it is believable, but um, under stock performance, the 9600K has rather low clocks. Under gaming? The CPU will (hopefully) be used to 100% to maximize performance, and has a frequency of 4.3 GHz all core. If Ryzen 3000 has more IPC, then actually, the 3800X is expected to beat the 9600K. Oh by the way you don't need an expensive motherboard to tune the Ryzen CPU past stock performance, where it is the case with the Intel CPU. And you do not need to purchase a cooler, you can run the CPU on the stock cooler, where you need a cooler with the K CPU. Basically, the 3800X is on par with the 9600K for gaming, and actually the 9600K will be garbage for EVERYTHING ELSE compared to the 3800X. Yes, 16 threads vs 6 makes quite a difference for almost everything else. Oh I forgot to use my big brain, the 3800X takes less poer than the 9600K, and the 9600K has a turbo TDP of 131W. 3800X is 105W. Yea. Big Brain Intel uses more power for less than half the threads. Sad.

I want Intel to grow the balls to show their CPU's actual power consumption when running past their base clocks. I want them to show how much power they are rated to take. I know how much power they are rated to take at turbo clocks. Intel isn't going to fool me. Two hundred ten watts for a fucking 8 core CPU (131W for the 9600K which is the normal CPU, which people usually buy), when AMD's 8 core 3800X is rated for half.
Posted on Reply
#52
Alien88
ratirt
Stability and drivers? I got Ryzen 2700x and I haven't noticed any driver issues or stability issues since day one. This is marketing scheme again and totally not justified claim.
Yes, same here with my 2400GE/B450i system, rock solid, no issues, and I run a shitload of different software on here including Adobe CS, but no games though...

Intel is definitely on a downward slide, they can't even make 10nm work properly and AMD is on 7nm and heading towards 5nm (TSMC is getting over 50% good chips on their 5nm trials), why anyone would buy Intel at this stage, given the higher prices, the higher power consumption and the vast number of inbuilt security flaws (many times more than AMD CPUs) is just hard to fathom.
Posted on Reply
#53
yotano211
I am not going to let Intel tell me which processor opens my porn tabs up faster. I will experience that on my own, brb, going to test some stuff out.

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....
The booting is handled by the SSD or hard drive.
Posted on Reply
#54
Zach_01
Do your selfs the favor and watch the whole thing please...

Posted on Reply
#55
Melvis
intel did the same thing with the P4 and look how many people fell for it lol this is no different .
Posted on Reply
#56
Tsukiyomi91
that said, if your use case is all about gaming, the i5-9400F or 9600KF would do just fine. For a balanced build, R5 3600 or R7 3700X is perfect for less money, more PCIe lanes & no need to worry about AVX adjusted all-core boosts or hardware mitigation tanking the chip's performance.
Posted on Reply
#58
Chrispy_
GoldenX
Holy cow, they are in complete denial.
It's called marketing spin. They know their product is riddled with vulnerabilities, running on old architecture and an old manufacturing node that can't compete any more.
Everyone here knows that Skylake++++ is hopeless in 2020, and 2019 belongs to AMD. Intel just have to look like they're doing something to keep the investors and shareholders happy.

The problem with marketing spin is that for everyone one of us enthusiasts that follow this stuff and can see right through Intel's BS, there are five other people who will fall for this ****; Hook, line, and sinker. They lie because the average or median person is a gullible fool and lies work on them.
Posted on Reply
#59
lewis007
This must be where Intel$ $3bn in reserved funding is going, propogandizing their "performance leadership" Lolz.
Posted on Reply
#60
Vayra86
Kelarik
If you check the description of that video, the AMD's at stock speeds, while the Intel's running at 5GHz all-core. Not all that useful a comparison if we're going to be OCing one but not the other
Well, Ryzen's XFR does most of the work, so I'd say its a pretty decent comparison and there is absolutely no way in hell the gap is just from OC. May get more pronounced, but then who buys K CPUs not to OC them?

Bottom line, overclocking on Intel is so easy, its a given, just be fair enough to count the added cost of cooling and perhaps board in your comparison when buying.

So the comparison I think is pretty damn useful, because it shows both systems at or near the top of their game.

y0y0
https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-3600/images/ac-odyssey-1920-1080.png



https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/amd_ryzen_5_3600_vs_intel_core_i5_9600k_test_procesorow?page=0,16

wat? next time check your source..
Indeed, you should have longer look, because your video contains a 2nd Gen Ryzen, but ok. The first video in your link shows this, 3rd rig being the Ryzen. The gap is visible in most of that sequence in the game.



Second game, big win for Ryzen, clearly loves cores (the i5 is also lagging by >10%)



It kinda goes on like that, doesn't it. When quad is enough, the 9350K leads, and by some noticeable margins too. When its not enough, Ryzen edges past, and sometimes even destroys it. Your PurePC link shows no 9350K... and the TPU link has no OC on the 9350K, while F version of it is on the very bottom.

And when I look onward in the video, the comparison is almost the same as the one I linked.

TL DR: nothing new to see here, is there?

PanicLake

Different setting? As you can see the left side has some kind of fog...
Who knows, I didn't make the video. But like pointed out above... this isn't rocket science guys. There is no reason to question those numbers in the greater scheme of it and they confirm everything we know about Intel, AMD, CPUs and gaming.

But, since its apparently hard to grasp, here's the summary

- Intel still wins on clockspeed, and still leads in games where clocks matter more than cores.
- AMD seems to get similar performance with lower clocks, hinting at higher IPC in some situations
- AMD cannot seem to extract high maximum FPS due to lower clocks and probably CCX latencies.
- Intel offers lower core counts at similar price.
- If price is no object, Intel still makes a better gaming CPU.

Its possible for competing products to... you know, compete. Its also possible to overestimate Zen's performance and come out losing. So let's not do that, and keep the info realistic. There is simply a lot to choose these days, everybody wins. The above still wouldn't mean I'd jump on an Intel CPU again today... but from the viewpoint of Intel's marketing team, they're actually not completely wrong.
Posted on Reply
#61
xeroxide
So next year I plan on upgrading my 3700x to maybe a 4700x or equivalent and all I need to do is swap out my cpu.... Intel, tell me about your upgrade path options?

What's that?
New motherboard?
New ram too?
Basically a whole new PC all over again...

Why would I buy a chip which is basically end of life, when I can invest my money into technology which has an upgrade path and performs almost as well in single thread performance while dominating in multi threaded performance.

Also for all the talks that Intel claim about real world, what I know is this.

An OS which I have been running for over a year, greatly benefits from multi thread performance simply because it's no longer pristine. You have stuff running behind the scenes everywhere.... Give me multi core performance and my OS will run smoother for longer.

Both companies do shady garbage in marketing, take a look at ryzen's boost clocks for example. But for me, I can see that ryzen is the better product of the two.

Intel wants my money?
Do better Intel, cause I'm sick of marketing be and can smell it from a mile away.
Posted on Reply
#62
Tsukiyomi91
2021 will be the year Ryzen 4000 will beat Intel's rather old 14nm node 10th Gen & maybe 11th gen Core Series CPUs. I don't have any hopes for Intel to improve their products or even reduce the price.
Posted on Reply
#63
ratirt
Tsukiyomi91
2021 will be the year Ryzen 4000 will beat Intel's rather old 14nm node 10th Gen & maybe 11th gen Core Series CPUs. I don't have any hopes for Intel to improve their products or even reduce the price.
2021 or 2020? The 4000 series Ryzen is going to be released next year. Besides Intel's 10th gen is already beaten price and performance wise. I think no reasonable person is expecting miracles with Intel's 11th gen CPUs. But hope for the best.
Posted on Reply
#64
biffzinker
Vayra86
but then who buys K CPUs not to OC them?
Those would be consumers after the higher clock speed the K suffix has compared to the K less models (9900/9700.)
Posted on Reply
#65
Tsukiyomi91
@ratirt according to rumor mills, AMD's Ryzen 4th gen Mobile CPUs will be releasing around Spring 2020, with the desktop variant, which uses the new Zen3 architecture, will be released around Fall 2020. It also stated that the new 7nm+ Ryzen 4000 Desktop uses has about 8-15% IPC gain, lower cache latency, higher Infinity Fabric clocks & 200MHz higher clocks per core over Zen2. For the Ryzen 4000 Mobile SKUs, it will use Navi GPU cores, has ~30% gain in multi-threaded scenario over Ryzen 3000 Mobile SKUs & a rumored R9 4xxx laptop CPU to compete directly with Intel's Ice Lake mobile CPUs. Good news is the Ryzen 4th gen Desktop will still be compatible with AM4 socket boards.
Posted on Reply
#66
ratirt
Tsukiyomi91
@ratirt according to rumor mills, AMD's Ryzen 4th gen Mobile CPUs will be releasing around Spring 2020, with the desktop variant, which uses the new Zen3 architecture, will be released around Fall 2020. It also stated that the new 7nm+ Ryzen 4000 Desktop uses has about 8-15% IPC gain, lower cache latency, higher Infinity Fabric clocks & 200MHz higher clocks per core over Zen2. For the Ryzen 4000 Mobile SKUs, it will use Navi GPU cores, has ~30% gain in multi-threaded scenario over Ryzen 3000 Mobile SKUs & a rumored R9 4xxx laptop CPU to compete directly with Intel's Ice Lake mobile CPUs. Good news is the Ryzen 4th gen Desktop will still be compatible with AM4 socket boards.
I thought it was 2020 but maybe something changed lately. With all the gains % I will leave it until I see it :)
I'd like to see Intel's response to AMD offerings in 2020. More curious about Intel's line-up.
Posted on Reply
#67
Tsukiyomi91
@ratirt yea. I'm interested to see how Intel will respond to AMD's new lineup. Will we see 10nm Core SKUs that has ~15% IPC gain over 14nm+++++, better all-core boost, higher AVX adjusted all-core boost, better hardware mitigation with minimal impact on performance, more PCIe lanes on processor instead of relying on chipset etc? Only time will tell. 2020 will be an interesting year no matter what.
Posted on Reply
#68
kapone32
Tsukiyomi91
@ratirt yea. I'm interested to see how Intel will respond to AMD's new lineup. Will we see 10nm Core SKUs that has ~15% IPC gain over 14nm+++++, better all-core boost, higher AVX adjusted all-core boost, better hardware mitigation with minimal impact on performance, more PCIe lanes on processor instead of relying on chipset etc? Only time will tell. 2020 will be an interesting year no matter what.
By the time Intel responds on the desktop it may be a little too late. If AMD can get that boost they will be faster than Intel in all applications. Hardware Unboxed did a video of the 3950X vs the 9900KS and once the RAM was OC (important for Ryzen) the 9900KS only beat the 3950X in 5 or 6 games and the 3950X was just as fast or faster than the 9900KS in another 15 games. If we get the next AM4 CPUs in 2020 with another 15% IPC watchout Intel. The test was done using a 2080TI at 1080P.
Posted on Reply
#69
Vayra86
biffzinker
Those would be consumers after the higher clock speed the K suffix has compared to the K less models (9900/9700.)
Ah yes, all five of them :D

Come on now. If you're after higher clocks, you're going to eventually figure out how to get them.
Posted on Reply
#70
Tsukiyomi91
@kapone32 well, it's an apparent thing right now in terms of workloads, for AMD Ryzen 3rd gen, that is. On a value standpoint, it's very obvious that AMD is the sweeter deal right now over Intel's entire Core i5 9th gen SKU, on top of beating nearly all of them.
Posted on Reply
#71
ratirt
kapone32
By the time Intel responds on the desktop it may be a little too late. If AMD can get that boost they will be faster than Intel in all applications. Hardware Unboxed did a video of the 3950X vs the 9900KS and once the RAM was OC (important for Ryzen) the 9900KS only beat the 3950X in 5 or 6 games and the 3950X was just as fast or faster than the 9900KS in another 15 games. If we get the next AM4 CPUs in 2020 with another 15% IPC watchout Intel. The test was done using a 2080TI at 1080P.
I still see that the IPC is strictly combined with games and frames as an indication of a CPU performance for some unknown reason. It would appear that there's nothing else aside games to look at CPU's performance and evaluation. This is probably the Intel's "real world benchmark" treatment.
Posted on Reply
#72
kapone32
Tsukiyomi91
@kapone32 well, it's an apparent thing right now in terms of workloads, for AMD Ryzen 3rd gen, that is. On a value standpoint, it's very obvious that AMD is the sweeter deal right now over Intel's entire Core i5 9th gen SKU, on top of beating nearly all of them.
Agreed, the only thing Intel is better overall is the value for new HEDT. They stupidly still have the last gen of Cascade Lake overpriced but the Cascade_X CPUs are well priced but the 2nd Gen TR4 chips compete with those for price and performance but give you more PCI_E goodness. Having said that it is my opinion that AMD has everything covered from $89 (R5 2400G) to $2000 (3970X) so unless you specifically want Intel there is no objective reason to build an Intel based desktop.

ratirt
I still see that the IPC is strictly combined with games and frames as an indication of a CPU performance for some unknown reason. It would appear that there's nothing else aside games to look at CPU's performance and evaluation. This is probably the Intel's "real world benchmark" treatment.
Well since they cannot compete on anything other than Gaming it makes sense that they would focus on that. I have a I7 on my work computer and the 1700 would run circles around that chip in Office based applications. Intel cannot even promote Premiere as AMD is now faster in that application as well.
Posted on Reply
#73
ratirt
kapone32
Well since they cannot compete on anything other than Gaming it makes sense that they would focus on that. I have a I7 on my work computer and the 1700 would run circles around that chip in Office based applications. Intel cannot even promote Premiere as AMD is now faster in that application as well.
Maybe these CPUs can't but it doesn't mean you have to cross this benchmarks out and focus on gaming only. You've mentioned competing in desktops and this is not gaming.
Anyway I know what you are saying. Pretty sad times for Intel these days.
Posted on Reply
#74
Tsukiyomi91
As much as I hate to see Intel doing crummy things, AMD will be their savior for them, bringing some common sense back into the blue camp, ramp up competition & whatnot. If Intel execs aren't responding to AMD's fierce marketing strategy, it'll be game over for them. The entire low-end to mid-end market is taken over by AMD. Soon to be taken up will be the mid-high, high-end & HEDTs.
Posted on Reply
#75
ratirt
Tsukiyomi91
As much as I hate to see Intel doing crummy things, AMD will be their savior for them, bringing some common sense back into the blue camp, ramp up competition & whatnot. If Intel execs aren't responding to AMD's fierce marketing strategy, it'll be game over for them. The entire low-end to mid-end market is taken over by AMD. Soon to be taken up will be the mid-high, high-end & HEDTs.
I think Intel's pride doesn't allow them to admit that AMD's product is superior. AMD's been the lesser company regarding CPU products and no matter what is happening Intel tends to remind everyone about it. If it was only true. You can see that in Intel's marketing all the time. I guess it is time to change some stuff Intel. No one is going to believe your wonder blunder marketing anymore.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment