Tuesday, June 23rd 2020

Intel Compares Notebooks with Two Different GPU Models to Stake Gaming Performance Leadership Claim

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (mobile) and the RTX 2060 Max-Q graphics solutions may look identical but they're not. That didn't matter for Intel marketing, which used them to show Intel's 10th Gen Core processors to be "18-23 percent" faster at gaming than AMD's Ryzen 4000 "Renoir," according to a fascinating discovery by _rogame. In a real-world gaming performance slide that's part of an Intel Partner Connect presentation, Intel compared two notebooks, one with a 45-Watt Core i7-10750H processor, and the other with a 35-Watt AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS.

The Ryzen-powered notebook is equipped with an RTX 2060 Max-Q, and is a 22 mm-thick 14-incher, while the Intel-powered notebook uses an RTX 2060 (mobile), and is a 27 mm-thick 15.6-inch notebook that's firmly in the H-segment (mainstream notebook). The RTX 2060 Max-Q has much tighter boost frequencies of 1185 MHz than the RTX 2060 (mobile), with its 1560 MHz boost. Power management is a lot tighter on the Max-Q SKU, too, with 65 W power limits against 90 W on the RTX 2060 (mobile). Intel Partner Connect is a platform for the company to interact with some of its biggest distributors and retailers.
Source: _rogame (Twitter)
Add your own comment

53 Comments on Intel Compares Notebooks with Two Different GPU Models to Stake Gaming Performance Leadership Claim

#1
fynxer
What happened "Bob Swan" to not using benchmarks.

If you make a call to move away from Benchmarking in the industry then you should lead by example.
Posted on Reply
#2
Noztra
Does this really surprise anyone?

And funny how they don't write the FPS, but just "up to X % better".
fynxer
What happened "Bob Swan" to not using benchmarks.
Intel are not using benchmarks when the results show that AMD is faster. Then benchmarks are FUD and irrelevant.

Benchmarks are okay, when Intel are faster. :P
Posted on Reply
#3
Flanker
Wow. I know this isn't the first time, but wow.
Posted on Reply
#4
ShurikN
Flanker
Wow. I know this isn't the first time, but wow.
Why "wow". I would be surprised if they didn't pull stuff like this. This is default Intel behavior.
Posted on Reply
#5
Bwaze
The last time Intel was caught doing something similar people defended them that they were using fastest Intel configuration versus fastest AMD configuration - it's was not Intel's fault that nobody made laptops with AMD processors and fast gaming cards.

This time there's no such excuse. Quick look at Geizhals.eu shows that there are more AMD Ryzen 4000 laptops available with Nvidia 2060 (8) than with 2060 Max-Q (7). And you can have them for similar price to Intel laptops (ASUS TUF Gaming A15 for instance).

Sure, it's written in description, so it's technically not "false advertising"... But it's still bullshit comparison.
Posted on Reply
#7
birdie
OMG, such a drama, such allegations, "different" GPUs.

Except Intel compares laptops solely on the basis of price. I see nothing bad about that, really. Two premium laptops and the cheaper runs faster.

Poor AMD fans just can't stop making up reasons to slander Intel.
Posted on Reply
#8
cucker tarlson
birdie
OMG, such a drama, such allegations, "different" GPUs.

Except Intel compares laptops solely on the basis of price. I see nothing bad about that, really. Two premium laptops and the cheaper runs faster.
huh,I completely missed that cause of the way this news piece was written
seems like a yet another intel bashing party is in full swing and the chief editor with the boys are having fun.

still it's weird coming from intel not msi.but true nonetheless.
Posted on Reply
#9
Bwaze
birdie
OMG, such a drama, such allegations, "different" GPUs.

Except Intel compares laptops solely on the basis of price. I see nothing bad about that, really. Two premium laptops and the cheaper runs faster.

Poor AMD fans just stop making up reasons to slander Intel.
You can pick a much cheaper AMD 4000 laptop with Nvidia 2060 than their chosen expensive one with 2060 Max-Q.

And comparing gaming speed "SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF PRICE" is ridiculous, you might as well pick an expensive premium model without discrete gaming card and beat it to pulp. What does that prove?
Posted on Reply
#10
Caring1
birdie
OMG, such a drama, such allegations, "different" GPUs.

Except Intel compares laptops solely on the basis of price. I see nothing bad about that, really. Two premium laptops and the cheaper runs faster.

Poor AMD fans just stop making up reasons to slander Intel.
More like poor Intel fan, making up excuses why it's ok for Intel to lie.
Posted on Reply
#11
dyonoctis
birdie
OMG, such a drama, such allegations, "different" GPUs.

Except Intel compares laptops solely on the basis of price. I see nothing bad about that, really. Two premium laptops and the cheaper runs faster.

Poor AMD fans just stop making up reasons to slander Intel.
That comparison is still opportunistic from Intel. Yes the price is similar, but those products cater to a different segment. One is a small 14" laptop weighing 1,6Kg, when the other weight 2,3Kg with a 15'6 screen.

Meanwhile the Zephyrus G15 exist, it got the same GPU, a 15'6 screen, it's cheaper, but somehow intel didn't choose to pit that msi laptop against it.
Posted on Reply
#12
silentbogo
Oh, man... Intel marketing is so desperate, they went all "pre-2015 AMD" on us.
I'm just wondering if it's a coincidence that they've decided to test a 45W i7 in a 15.6" chassis versus 35W-capped Ryzen in a 14" chassis crammed by a far bigger(and superior) battery?
Would've been only fair to use.... hm... lemmethinkaminute..... Asus Zephyrus G15 or TUF A15 with a 45W TDP cap?!
Posted on Reply
#13
Sandman31
2060 vs 2060 MaxQ, not representative at all ...
Posted on Reply
#14
Xex360
Doesn't surprise me, all marketing is BS, they'll always find ways to make their product look better than what it is.
Posted on Reply
#15
watzupken
Intel is caught with their hands in the cookie jar again. It is clear that whatever they put in their marketing material needs to be revalidated again, since they like to provide information to showcase their product and deliberately handicapping competitor's product. I know that's what marketing is, but this is blatant misrepresentation.
silentbogo
Oh, man... Intel marketing is so desperate, they went all "pre-2015 AMD" on us.
I'm just wondering if it's a coincidence that they've decided to test a 45W i7 in a 15.6" chassis versus 35W-capped Ryzen in a 14" chassis crammed by a far bigger(and superior) battery?
Would've been only fair to use.... hm... lemmethinkaminute..... Asus Zephyrus G15 or TUF A15 with a 45W TDP cap?!
They are desperate. But this sort of misrepresentation works in their favor because most non tech savvy people will not question what they see on the graphs. At least until they get into lawsuits for misrepresentation.
Posted on Reply
#16
Bwaze
"Intel Partner Connect is a platform for the company to interact with some of its biggest distributors and retailers."

This isn't meant for tech illiterate people.
Posted on Reply
#17
Assimilator
TPU writing news articles about marketing departments being dishonest? Oh boy, you'd better hire someone who can work 24/7.

Unless you're the kind of chump who believes in marketing material, in which case... good luck.
Posted on Reply
#18
evernessince
birdie
OMG, such a drama, such allegations, "different" GPUs.

Except Intel compares laptops solely on the basis of price. I see nothing bad about that, really. Two premium laptops and the cheaper runs faster.

Poor AMD fans just stop making up reasons to slander Intel.
This is why we need an option to mark a post as low quality and have it hidden unless people click to expand.

Either this guy is in denial or he isn't qualified to be posting.
Posted on Reply
#19
R0H1T
Well tbf this is how most comparisons are done, though you'll rarely see that Intel config being offered so cheaply in the rest of the world. Either way, it is somewhat deceptive marketing.
Posted on Reply
#20
Lionheart
birdie
OMG, such a drama, such allegations, "different" GPUs.

Except Intel compares laptops solely on the basis of price. I see nothing bad about that, really. Two premium laptops and the cheaper runs faster.

Poor AMD fans just stop making up reasons to slander Intel.
Birdie will you stfu with all the AMD fanboy crap, give it a rest.
Posted on Reply
#21
Fourstaff
Can we please stop calling each other names and derail the thread? Last warning.
Posted on Reply
#22
birdie
dyonoctis
That comparison is still opportunistic from Intel. Yes the price is similar, but those products cater to a different segment. One is a small 14" laptop weighing 1,6Kg, when the other weight 2,3Kg with a 15'6 screen.

Meanwhile the Zephyrus G15 exist, it got the same GPU, a 15'6 screen, it's cheaper, but somehow intel didn't choose to pit that msi laptop against it.
This is marketing and I have absolutely no issues with you comparing other laptops as well. It's just Intel (marketing department) which chose these two laptops. You see, marketing people want to have their salary as well :) Guys at Intel are desperate because the company is losing ground left and right: Apple has given up on them, Zen 2 server CPUs are leaps and bounds better (aside from AI tasks), Ryzen 4000 mobile CPUs decimate Intel's offerings and Tiger Lake promises to be a four core part, which means that even with the projected 15% IPC increase and 30% CPU frequency increase 8 core Ryzen mobile laptops will still be faster.
Posted on Reply
#23
DeathtoGnomes
its quite obvious Intel marketing team failed again, but that doesnt mean Intel produced a crap product. It does mean that someone from the brilliant (sarcasm) Intel marketing team should be fired, again.

On a side note: @ Those that cant be civil, go back to Tom's. :shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
#24
Assimilator
evernessince
This is why we need an option to mark a post as low quality and have it hidden unless people click to expand.

Either this guy is in denial or he isn't qualified to be posting.
birdie's point is valid. If AMD had made similarly deceptive marketing claims, bta either wouldn't have bothered posting an article on it, or would have managed to make some sort of justification for AMD's behaviour.

There is no problem having an editor who is biased, but there is a big problem when said editor allows their bias to determine what news articles are posted and the tone of those articles. And there's a far bigger problem when people eat up what is being posted without looking at the context or doing their own research.
DeathtoGnomes
its quite obvious Intel marketing team failed again, but that doesnt mean Intel produced a crap product. It does mean that someone from the brilliant (sarcasm) Intel marketing team should be fired, again.

On a side note: @ Those that cant be civil, go back to Tom's. :shadedshu:
I don't think you understand how marketing works... more deceptive = better. The guy who created that slide probably got a promotion.
Posted on Reply
#25
cucker tarlson
Assimilator
I don't think you understand how marketing works... more deceptive = better. The guy who created that slide probably got a promotion.
sad but true
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment