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
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.
75 Comments on Intel Marketing Claims i5-9600KF Better than 3800X, i3-9350KF Better than 3600X
Different setting? As you can see the left side has some kind of fog...
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.
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....
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.
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:
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.
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.
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?
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 generationrebrand their 14nm products)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 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.
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.
You where saying?