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)
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.
53 Comments on Intel Compares Notebooks with Two Different GPU Models to Stake Gaming Performance Leadership Claim
If you make a call to move away from Benchmarking in the industry then you should lead by example.
And funny how they don't write the FPS, but just "up to X % better".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
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.
across all 11 3dmark tests 2060 MaxQ is 81% performance of 2060 mobile
in AC:O it's 90%.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?!
This isn't meant for tech illiterate people.
Unless you're the kind of chump who believes in marketing material, in which case... good luck.
On a side note: @ Those that cant be civil, go back to Tom's. :shadedshu:
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.I don't think you understand how marketing works... more deceptive = better. The guy who created that slide probably got a promotion.
Intel are funnier though.