Intel Says AMD Did a Great Job (with Ryzen 3000), But Intel CPUs are Still Better

[Vulcansheart]

Intel has a lot of work to do to get their edge back. AMD is a direct threat now, and the consumers know it no matter how much Intel tries to shrug it off. I switched to the red team this year with a budget 2600X gaming build (my first ever AMD build from scratch), so Intel has a couple years to get their cards right before I do a CPU/mobo refresh and look at their lineup as an option.

 

[Super XP]

AMD beat Intel hands down with ZEN, ZEN+ and again ZEN2. AMD will continue to beat Intel with all new upcoming ZEN micro-architectures.

The only thing Intel needs to do is STOP having a Temper-Tantrum.

 

[AsRock]

"Intel started a new campaign against AMD "

Not the 1st one either lmao.

 

[Fluffmeister]

I bet Intel wish there was a third player, then they would just buy them.

 

[biffzinker]

"Intel started a new campaign against AMD "

Not the 1st one either lmao.

Knowing how Intel has reacted to AMD being competive in the past, I'm certain there's more to follow.

 

[Athlonite]

PFT better single core speed than AMD um who cares I haven't used a program that relied on single core / Thread in like years

 

[R0H1T]

I bet Intel wish there was a third player, then they would just buy them.

There is except they're owned by the Chinese, Zhaoxin is the name you're looking for.

Knowing how Intel has reacted to AMD being competive in the past, I'm certain there's more to follow.

I'm certain there's a lot happening beneath the surface, which we won't know about probably until the damage is done.

 

[Camm]

Is my (sic) better CPU secure?

 

[1d10t]

I'm suggest they using these image for future marketing materials...

I still don't understand why they keep insisting single thread is important, how about build single core 6GHz base 7Ghz boost CPU to prove their point ?

And these "gaming CPU" again...*sigh.I know it's their marketing material,but i fell kinda misleading. People with average knowledge on a budget still think $400 CPU is all you need for gaming rather than $400 GPU.
I shouldn't scold them anymore, after all gaming is all they had left, after lost in data center, servers, desktop and (soon) high end desktop productivity, not to mention Snapdragon 8cx also knocking on their ULV portables

 

[blobster21]

Is my (sic) better CPU secure?

Intel Says AMD Did a Great Job (with Ryzen 3000), But Intel CPUs are Still Better

I'ma get me a 9900k cause Intel would never lie about their products. /s

www.techpowerup.com

"
Funny they didn't mention Security anywhere except in the fine print in their graphics which states" Benchmarks may not have been run with all current available security patches."
I wonder if they still win benches with all updates installed? "

 

[Camm]

Intel Says AMD Did a Great Job (with Ryzen 3000), But Intel CPUs are Still Better

I'ma get me a 9900k cause Intel would never lie about their products. /s

www.techpowerup.com

"
Funny they didn't mention Security anywhere except in the fine print in their graphics which states" Benchmarks may not have been run with all current available security patches."
I wonder if they still win benches with all updates installed? "

The problem I have is every 3 months there is another major vulnerability with Intel's CPU's, where as it either doesn't affect AMD, or is much much less affected. Performance is one thing, and yes, its important, but I really couldn't give two shits about single digit differences if my platform isn't at least notionally secure.

 

[Jism]

Poor marketing. They rely on the 1% single thread advantage those CPU's have, but thats about it. Lol.

 

[ratirt]

Honestly, the gaming performance is something most people will perceive as actual performance. They don't realize that Intel being the top dog for so long makes it obvious the games run a tad faster on Intel's CPUs. I'm not saying it is wrong but think about this. Since it has been 10 or so years Intel's been a king of gaming and now AMD basically is a strong competition for gaming, what would happen if we turn it around and AMD with it's Ryzen was 10 years a king? Intel would be the "bulldozer" now with its lousy core number. (Well you know what I mean I hope) AMD has achieved more in 2 years than Intel in a decade.

In terms of gaming, Sure Intel is fast and we all know why (it is not an IPC cause Ryzen 2 has better than Intel's) so it is game code execution. Ask yourself this question. Is 4k gaming a future or 720p/1080p 240Hz? For me 4k cause it looks awesome and I think games and most of people here will agree with me. This is the way technology advancement should pursuit. The other thing is, while Ryzen is slower on lower resolutions in one game, in 4k, with the same game it is faster than Intel counterpart is. Just drawing a bigger picture here and leave conclusions for you people.

The fact that intel struggles to make processors with more cores (in a price point affordable for most people) means, Intel's starting to lose ground and fast. 10nm Isn't working as it should (we don’t know if it ever will go to a desktop market), 5Ghz and up for CPUs is overrated, more cores are needed cause it has been proven that die shrinks won't bring boosts in frequency any more but degradation. AMD did it right with the core number because that is the only way you can boost performance. (Developers!! BUCKLY UP AND USE IT!!!) I can bet, 10 years from now (or even 5) AMD will be the top dog if this keeps up and Intel will be throwing shit on AMD saying, I'm a king of gaming, Real live benchmarks and crap like that. It would've been way more productive for Intel to swallow pride, buckle up and start with an idea how to make future products better and counter AMD or else Intel will perish with its pride and cheap schemes. For me this is pathetic and since Intel is playing this card, means they've got nothing to offer nor an idea even. The 10th gen CPUs proves it badly.

 

[Jism]

For 1080p with highest FPS a fast CPU is mandatory. Intel wins due to it's 1% IPC advantage compared to AMD in single-threaded applications. But that is pretty much no longer a valid reason just to go for intel. AMD is the better overal product performance and price wise. At higher resolutions the GPU starts to be the bottleneck, or having more difficulty with putting out 200 frames a second. The role of the CPU beyond 1080p is'nt that important anymore. 240Hz gaming is a niche market, not something everyday casual gamer needs or something. I doubt if you can feel any difference in between 120fps and 240fps for that matter. Apart from that, do we really notice any difference in between a one second faster closing task we throw at the CPU if we're going productive for that matter?

CPU's these days pretty much are equal, they do their task fast and if you need more you buy a bigger / faster model, simple as that. There could be some gains in selecting the memory and which NVME ssd, but both platform will show the same performance at some point.

 

[Vayra86]

Is 4k gaming a future or 720p/1080p 240Hz? For me 4k cause it looks awesome and I think games and most of people here will agree with me. This is the way technology advancement should pursuit.

Hold on pal!

Whoever brought up that the two (high res / high refresh) are to be mutually exclusive or that the pursuit of one, can, does, or should go at the expense of another needs to get his head examined. And you, too, if you really think this is the case. This has absolutely nothing to do with the 'Intel gaming lead' or 'code optimized for Intel'.

Precisely the better threaded engines for gaming are also capable of pushing higher FPS. This is not about Ryzen versus Core. Its about shifting away from the dependance on single threaded applications. Did AMD really push that forward? Or is it just the general trend that we're now finally ready for it? Its the latter; consoles & mobile devices carry a higher core count, we have better APIs available (API development also instigated by consoles btw), so you will see the same development in gaming on (performance) PCs. Its just that simple, its about the common denominator. In the same vein, now that higher counts than quad are getting mainstream and consoles already had 6+ cores available, we see those being used in our 'gaming' CPUs.

Now think back, despite quad cores being the norm for a decade on PC, prior to PS4, games simply did not scale beyond a single thread. And even if your OSD did say they used more, you didn't gain much FPS from it.

Intel did what it did because there was no market to grab. Besides, their HEDT segment already offered six cores for ages, but nobody jumped on those either. There was never a demand, another writing on the wall was AMD's bulldozer exactly; '8' core CPUs with no workload to shine at, while being pretty bad at the workloads most people did use. AMD stacked a few royal failures in that regard which put them on the bench for a long time.

Your idea that 'pursuit of technology' is in ANY way going towards gaming wrt to the Zen architecture... jesus man. These are datacenter/server CPUs first and foremost, the rest is bonus. And again, the same goes for Intel. They can yell about their gaming dominance but that was also just given to them because they dominated the market for a while, and they had their sweet time to fine tune things for the MSDT segment - much like you see with Ryzen 3000 right now (and lo and behold, the gap is shrinking fast for 'consumer workloads'...).

Let's not overinflate things, before it reads like another Intel press release.

 

[ratirt]

Whoever brought up that the two (high res / high refresh) are to be mutually exclusive or that the pursuit of one, can, does, or should go at the expense of another needs to get his head examined. And you, too, if you really think this is the case. This has absolutely nothing to do with the 'Intel gaming lead' or 'code optimized for Intel'.

As always you are missing the point just to prove your point. Sure the 4k can have a high refresh rate but still nowadays no card can push 100 or more in 4K gameplay (unless you play Minecraft). It's not like these two are exclusive nor mandatory, never said that) but from my standpoint (an I defend this) I'd rather go 4k and 60hz than 1080p 240hz. That is my opinion so please dont tell me to examine anything if you don't get it. The implication I made is about Intel proving the advantage (and some people point it out 1080p and 240Hz and Intel get higher FPS while in 4K AMD and Intel are basically the same). My point here is, Intel has no advantage in 4k and FPS (sometimes it lacks it). Not that 4k can't have a high refresh rate.

Precisely the better threaded engines for gaming are also capable of pushing higher FPS. This is not about Ryzen versus Core. Its about shifting away from the dependence on single threaded applications. Did AMD really push that forward? Or is it just the general trend that we're now finally ready for it?

General trend? What the hell are you talking about? For a decade we were stuck with 4c8t by Intel and now we have 8c in a desktop market thanks to AMD and you dare asking about what AMD did? Instead of offering more cores Intel was pursuing higher frequency and most games were using this advantage instead of cores. ( that's why we don't have many games using 6c not to mention 12 threads now) that's so damn obvious for me and yet there's always you arguing. What a hypocrite you are is beyond believe.
Please stop comparing 3 different markets and lets focus on PC please. Mobile and console are a different story here. Two bad you've missed that.

Intel did what it did because there was no market to grab. Besides, their HEDT segment already offered six cores for ages, but nobody jumped on those either. There was never a demand, another writing on the wall was AMD's bulldozer exactly; '8' core CPUs with no workload to shine at, while being pretty bad at the workloads most people did use. AMD stacked a few royal failures in that regard which put them on the bench for a long time.

Intel did what it did because it was convenient not because there was no market for it. First you need to have something to play with and then you can improve upon it. You get 2 core and you focus development on this. Intel was never pushing cores but frequency and developers were following that trend. Just now, 2 years back the trend has changed. Not frequency but cores matter and developers are, just now, starting to use this resources. First resources you can build upon, then software and developers support not all the way around. Sure it did offer 6c but for what price? Developers see the market trend and it wasn't desktop 6c/12t for everyone but high-end overpriced product for exclusive users and you are saying developers would focus on that niche product to develop their own software for this? AMD bulldozer was 8c but it lacked performance. I knew you'd bring that one up but this is nowhere near where Intel was back then and no game developer would use more cores and threads utilization for a product that doesn't have the performance.

Your idea that 'pursuit of technology' is in ANY way going towards gaming wrt to the Zen architecture... jesus man

Where the hell did I say that pursuit of technology is going towards gaming and zen arch?

This is the way technology advancement should pursuit

This is related to the 4k gaming which in my eyes is the way to go (because it does look great and detail level is outstanding) instead focusing on 720p with 500FPS and that also is important to this particular thread when Intel brags about performance of their CPUs compared to AMD. True but I dont care about that cause for me this is not the way to go. That's mine opinion and stop twisting what I said cause it really sucks.

Let's not overinflate things, before it reads like another Intel press release.

Then don't. Just simply disagree and move on. You dont have to read it but maybe others would

 

[64K]

Sure the 4k can have a high refresh rate but still nowadays no card can push 100 or more in 4K gameplay (unless you play Minecraft).

From the review of the RTX 2080 Ti FE here from a sample of 23 AAA games benched at 4K at highest settings 6 were over 100 FPS average and 3 were high 90s FPS average, almost 100 FPS.

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Founders Edition 11 GB Review

NVIDIA debuted its Turing graphics architecture today, straightaway with the flagship RTX 2080 Ti. This card packs the promise of real-time ray tracing at 4K UHD, besides huge gains in performance. NVIDIA also put out its best cooler design since TITAN, commanding a very high price for some very...

www.techpowerup.com

 

[ratirt]

From the review of the RTX 2080 Ti FE here from a sample of 23 AAA games benched at 4K at highest settings 6 were over 100 FPS average and 3 were high 90s FPS average, almost 100 FPS.

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Founders Edition 11 GB Review

NVIDIA debuted its Turing graphics architecture today, straightaway with the flagship RTX 2080 Ti. This card packs the promise of real-time ray tracing at 4K UHD, besides huge gains in performance. NVIDIA also put out its best cooler design since TITAN, commanding a very high price for some very...

www.techpowerup.com

Yes you are right. Maybe I should have been more specific. There are games the 2080Ti can push 100 or even more. So 3 games 100FPS average with probably dips below 100. So that gives you 20 games that the card couldn't go above 100FPS. With OC probably more than 3 but still, is that a justification from your side it can be done? I don't think new games will go that easy on the 2080Ti as these 3 you have in mind.
Thanks for pointing this out but I was using the 4k gaming for different purpose than attacking 2080Ti's performance.

 

[dyonoctis]

This is related to the 4k gaming which in my eyes is the way to go (because it does look great and detail level is outstanding) instead focusing on 720p with 500FPS and that also is important to this particular thread when Intel brags about performance of their CPUs compared to AMD. True but I dont care about that cause for me this is not the way to go. That's mine opinion and stop twisting what I said cause it really sucks.

The issue is that right now 1080p is still the mainstream reference, followed closely by 1440p. In my eyes, unless we somehow get a massive jump in gpu preformance, we are going to stay stuck with having to choose between graphics, or higher resolution/refresh rate. Dr Lisa Su said it herself : right now the software is moving faster than the hardware.

 

[64K]

Yes you are right. Maybe I should have been more specific. There are games the 2080Ti can push 100 or even more. So 3 games 100FPS average with probably dips below 100. So that gives you 20 games that the card couldn't go above 100FPS. With OC probably more than 3 but still, is that a justification from your side it can be done? I don't think new games will go that easy on the 2080Ti as these 3 you have in mind.

Well, if you look at minimum FPS then probably not many AAA games will be over 100 FPS. Still I think 9 games out of 23 benched were close to 100 FPS average or over at highest quality settings is significant.

No I don't think the 2080 Ti will continue to fare so well in future games but then there's probably a 7nm 3080 Ti next year that will.

As I always say, 4K gaming is for the people willing to pay for it and there are very few of them from what I've seen. 4K at extremely high FPS are probably very, very few but it can be done if you're willing to pay for it.

 

[ratirt]

Well, if you look at minimum FPS then probably not many AAA games will be over 100 FPS. Still I think 9 games out of 23 benched were close to 100 FPS average or over at highest quality settings is significant.

No I don't think the 2080 Ti will continue to fare so well in future games but then there's probably a 7nm 3080 Ti next year that will.

As I always say, 4K gaming is for the people willing to pay for it and there are very few of them from what I've seen. 4K at extremely high FPS are probably very, very few but it can be done if you're willing to pay for it.

The issue is that right now 1080p is still the mainstream reference, followed closely by 1440p. In my eyes, unless we somehow get a massive jump in gpu preformance, we are going to stay stuck with having to choose between graphics, or higher resolution/refresh rate. Dr Lisa Su said it herself : right now the software is moving faster than the hardware.

I play 4k and can't complain well games which allow me to play at that res with my v64 It does look outstanding believe me. Even older games look way nicer in 4K.
Anyway that's not the point and this thread is for something else please guys, I don't want to argue about what res people prefer or if 2080 Ti can push 100 in games. That is not what I wanted to point out here.

 

[Totally]

Hold on pal!

Whoever brought up that the two (high res / high refresh) are to be mutually exclusive or that the pursuit of one, can, does, or should go at the expense of another needs to get his head examined. And you, too, if you really think this is the case. This has absolutely nothing to do with the 'Intel gaming lead' or 'code optimized for Intel'.

Precisely the better threaded engines for gaming are also capable of pushing higher FPS. This is not about Ryzen versus Core. Its about shifting away from the dependance on single threaded applications. Did AMD really push that forward? Or is it just the general trend that we're now finally ready for it? Its the latter; consoles & mobile devices carry a higher core count, we have better APIs available (API development also instigated by consoles btw), so you will see the same development in gaming on (performance) PCs. Its just that simple, its about the common denominator. In the same vein, now that higher counts than quad are getting mainstream and consoles already had 6+ cores available, we see those being used in our 'gaming' CPUs.

Now think back, despite quad cores being the norm for a decade on PC, prior to PS4, games simply did not scale beyond a single thread. And even if your OSD did say they used more, you didn't gain much FPS from it.

Intel did what it did because there was no market to grab. Besides, their HEDT segment already offered six cores for ages, but nobody jumped on those either. There was never a demand, another writing on the wall was AMD's bulldozer exactly; '8' core CPUs with no workload to shine at, while being pretty bad at the workloads most people did use. AMD stacked a few royal failures in that regard which put them on the bench for a long time.

Your idea that 'pursuit of technology' is in ANY way going towards gaming wrt to the Zen architecture... jesus man. These are datacenter/server CPUs first and foremost, the rest is bonus. And again, the same goes for Intel. They can yell about their gaming dominance but that was also just given to them because they dominated the market for a while, and they had their sweet time to fine tune things for the MSDT segment - much like you see with Ryzen 3000 right now (and lo and behold, the gap is shrinking fast for 'consumer workloads'...).

Let's not overinflate things, before it reads like another Intel press release.

Do you put your shoes on one at a time or both at the same time? You can try to throw both on at once but the results are much better doing one and then the other.

I play 4k and can't complain well games which allow me to play at that res with my v64 It does look outstanding believe me. Even older games look way nicer in 4K.
Anyway that's not the point and this thread is for something else please guys, I don't want to argue about what res people prefer or if 2080 Ti can push 100 in games. That is not what I wanted to point out here.

I thin you should have clarified that 4k is "immediate" future

 

[Vayra86]

As always you are missing the point just to prove your point. Sure the 4k can have a high refresh rate but still nowadays no card can push 100 or more in 4K gameplay (unless you play Minecraft). It's not like these two are exclusive nor mandatory, never said that) but from my standpoint (an I defend this) I'd rather go 4k and 60hz than 1080p 240hz. That is my opinion so please dont tell me to examine anything if you don't get it. The implication I made is about Intel proving the advantage (and some people point it out 1080p and 240Hz and Intel get higher FPS while in 4K AMD and Intel are basically the same). My point here is, Intel has no advantage in 4k and FPS (sometimes it lacks it). Not that 4k can't have a high refresh rate.

General trend? What the hell are you talking about? For a decade we were stuck with 4c8t by Intel and now we have 8c in a desktop market thanks to AMD and you dare asking about what AMD did? Instead of offering more cores Intel was pursuing higher frequency and most games were using this advantage instead of cores. ( that's why we don't have many games using 6c not to mention 12 threads now) that's so damn obvious for me and yet there's always you arguing. What a hypocrite you are is beyond believe.
Please stop comparing 3 different markets and lets focus on PC please. Mobile and console are a different story here. Two bad you've missed that.

Intel did what it did because it was convenient not because there was no market for it. First you need to have something to play with and then you can improve upon it. You get 2 core and you focus development on this. Intel was never pushing cores but frequency and developers were following that trend. Just now, 2 years back the trend has changed. Not frequency but cores matter and developers are, just now, starting to use this resources. First resources you can build upon, then software and developers support not all the way around. Sure it did offer 6c but for what price? Developers see the market trend and it wasn't desktop 6c/12t for everyone but high-end overpriced product for exclusive users and you are saying developers would focus on that niche product to develop their own software for this? AMD bulldozer was 8c but it lacked performance. I knew you'd bring that one up but this is nowhere near where Intel was back then and no game developer would use more cores and threads utilization for a product that doesn't have the performance.

Where the hell did I say that pursuit of technology is going towards gaming and zen arch?

This is related to the 4k gaming which in my eyes is the way to go (because it does look great and detail level is outstanding) instead focusing on 720p with 500FPS and that also is important to this particular thread when Intel brags about performance of their CPUs compared to AMD. True but I dont care about that cause for me this is not the way to go. That's mine opinion and stop twisting what I said cause it really sucks.


Then don't. Just simply disagree and move on. You dont have to read it but maybe others would

If you truly believe 'now we have 8c thanks to AMD', then yes, get yourself examined. 8 core CPUs were there far earlier than Zen. There simply wasn't a market within the mainstream segment to launch them despite AMD trying to. For HEDT, there wére - up there you do have nicely threaded workloads and applications. Part of the reason FX-processors sucked so hard was because on MSDT, there were simply no good workloads for it. And for HEDT, Intel 6 cores would already run circles around them. AMD only receives kudos for bringing the price down on higher core counts. Because they compete again across the whole product stack.

For a decade we were stuck at 4c8t. And yet, games did not scale beyond 1 or 2 threads anyway. Found the reason behind that yet? Because that is proof that the movement to higher core counts for gaming is extremely late to the party, we've had quads for ages now and games are only recently truly catching up to that - and still many haven't.

Convenient / no market... aren't they the same? Its not convenient to make parts you don't sell.

You can be all up in arms about what I've said but its not strange and 'making my point', its an observation on what you think happened the last decade, and I think you're wearing the wrong glasses looking back. We need the hardware before we get the software that will fully use it, and then we also need 'the performance', after all if nobody asks for 200 FPS gaming, it won't be built. And the better threading of games on the CPU coincides NOT with Zen, but with the console releases.

The result of better threading then, is that we're no longer tied to single core processing power and thát in turn enables high refresh/FPS gaming. 4K is not even a player in the story here, you can run that on a potato CPU, what does it even do in a Zen topic one might ask... Its no secret that a CPU will do fine as long as its not the part bottlenecking you. There is no 'pursuit' to be had for CPUs to enable 4K gaming.

So, back to my final line in last post: let's not overinflate what happened here with Zen's release, because that is the gist of your story. As if AMD 'enabled' something for gamers. They didn't, and the higher core counts were coming regardless. They gave us back healthy competition and that's all it is.

 

[biffzinker]

Here's a interesting benchmark that doesn't have optimizations that favor one company over the other. I wouldn't of expected the Ryzen 5 3600 ahead of the Core i9-9900K though.

Neat Video has been optimized for use on multi-core and multi-CPU systems and supports GPU acceleration. Legit Reviews contacted ABSoft, NeatLab and asked if they have ever worked with AMD, Intel, NVIDIA, Qualcomm or ARM for CPU optimizations and they do not recall any interactions like that over the years. They did acknowledge that NVIDIA and AMD use NeatBench for GPU testing, but no optimizations have been asked for by either company. That is music to our ears as it looks like we have a benchmark that hasn’t been heavily optimized for any one particular company.

12 CPUs Tested Using Neat Video Noise Reduction Tool w/ NeatBench 5 - Legit Reviews

www.legitreviews.com

Puget Systems gets the same scoring with Neatbench 5.

First Look at AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen CPUs for Video Editing

AMD's new Ryzen 3rd generation CPUs just launched with terrific performance improvements across the board. While we don't have the full lineup tested just yet, we wanted to give a first look at what we are seeing in Premiere Pro, After Effects, DaVinci Resolve, and other applications commonly...

www.pugetsystems.com

Did a quick run on my desktop.

 

[Super XP]

Here's a interesting benchmark that doesn't have optimizations that favor one company over the other. I wouldn't of expected the Ryzen 5 3600 ahead of the Core i9-9900K though.

12 CPUs Tested Using Neat Video Noise Reduction Tool w/ NeatBench 5 - Legit Reviews

www.legitreviews.com

Puget Systems gets the same scoring with Neatbench 5.

First Look at AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen CPUs for Video Editing

AMD's new Ryzen 3rd generation CPUs just launched with terrific performance improvements across the board. While we don't have the full lineup tested just yet, we wanted to give a first look at what we are seeing in Premiere Pro, After Effects, DaVinci Resolve, and other applications commonly...

www.pugetsystems.com

Did a quick run on my desktop.

View attachment 130227

The majority if not all Synthetic Benchmarks ALL favour Intel CPU's. This is a common fact that most people know, which is why Real World Benchmarks are the real deal.
Though Synthetic benchmarks do have there place, so long as no CPU's are being favoured.

Intel Says AMD Did a Great Job (with Ryzen 3000), But Intel CPUs are Still Better

I'ma get me a 9900k cause Intel would never lie about their products. /s

www.techpowerup.com

"
Funny they didn't mention Security anywhere except in the fine print in their graphics which states" Benchmarks may not have been run with all current available security patches."
I wonder if they still win benches with all updates installed? "

Intel took design shortcuts to squeeze out more performance and got caught with all the security vulnerabilities.
Basically Intel's Security Vulnerabilities should be Front Page News and should be talked about as much as possible. The security patches disable features which people made purchasing decisions on. By patching there CPU's, they are False Advertising.