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

[cucker tarlson]

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

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

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.

Your funny.

Intel are funnier though.

 

[B-Real]

Keep it up, Intel, down on the slope.

Keep it up, Intel, down on the slope.

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.

Nobody needs to slander Intel. It does it with itself thanks to these false comparisons. However, it's a shame you can't understand why their comparison is a complete bullshit. The AMD laptop is a much lighter laptop with a weaker GPU... I really pity you.

 

[1d10t]

Pitted Asus 14 inch against MSI 15.6 inch, yeah seems legit.
Even in Asus 15 inch Tim said its not worth it

[Youtube]

 

[Vayra86]

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.

Whahahahaha are you for real buddy? You're in so deep you can't even see it. Holy crap.

Signed, a dude with an Intel CPU.

 

[R0H1T]

The guy who created that slide probably got a promotion.

Yes that's the way the world works sadly, but then you do get a blow-back eventually. If everyone buying PC's was nearly as informed as most DIY builders you can bet your bottom dollar Intel wouldn't try to pull this BS off too often!

 

[Vayra86]

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.



I don't think you understand how marketing works... more deceptive = better. The guy who created that slide probably got a promotion.

No, just no. This is not a price comparison, its a performance comparison with different components and that is strange. A price comparison would be two laptops with same form factor, similar components and similar performance, who is cheaper. The editor is doing fine here. Not always, but this is spot on. Any sucker can pick two models, put them side by side and somehow explain a difference in their favor.

I get the marketing angle, but as with AMD, we call them out on the bullshit and yes we make it bigger. To underline the bullshit.

I don't think you understand how marketing works... more deceptive = better. The guy who created that slide probably got a promotion.

This is only deceptive if you're an absolute idiot but still intelligent enough to understand tech. I suppose the target market is large enough and you're right at least in this.

And that is ALSO why this bullshit needs maximum exposure.

 

[Vya Domus]

A laptop with a faster GPU is, drum rolls, faster ! And a laptop with a faster CPU that has a smaller power envelope is, drum rolls, more expensive !

Ironically this the most honest benchmark as of late. No fine print, just straight up nonsense, they realized there is no pointing in hiding it.

its quite obvious Intel marketing team failed again, but that doesnt mean Intel produced a crap product.

I am going to say something extremely mean but I can't help it. The thing is that they haven't failed, I don't think your average Intel customers has the, ehm, ability to discern between these details.

 

[milewski1015]

Huh, stronger GPU gives better FPS in GPU-bound titles, who woulda thunk it?

That's not to say I'm surprised to see this from Intel these days. Their gaming figures are about all they have going for them, so they've gotta make themselves marketable however they can. However, that doesn't mean it's okay to implicate that your CPU is flat-out better when other variables aren't controlled for, like GPU in this case.

 

[Assimilator]

No, just no. This is not a price comparison, its a performance comparison with different components and that is strange. A price comparison would be two laptops with same form factor, similar components and similar performance, who is cheaper. The editor is doing fine here. Not always, but this is spot on. Any sucker can pick two models, put them side by side and somehow explain a difference in their favor.

I get the marketing angle, but as with AMD, we call them out on the bullshit and yes we make it bigger. To underline the bullshit.

After some reconsideration, I agree.

But I maintain that the article would have been better if a table comparing the specs of the two laptops would have been provided, so readers would be able to see exactly what corners were cut to allow the Intel laptop to reach the lower price point with a faster GPU. That would have made it far clearer how deceptive and nonsensical this marketing is.

This is only deceptive if you're an absolute idiot but still intelligent enough to understand tech. I suppose the target market is large enough and you're right at least in this.

And that is ALSO why this bullshit needs maximum exposure.

The fewer true advantages they actually have to market their CPUs with, the worse Intel's marketing is going to get. As such I'm expecting a lot more of this BS as we ramp up towards the Zen 3/Ryzen 4000 release, and TPU can either choose to call all of it out, or post actual news articles. I know which one I'd prefer...

Perhaps someone should setup a fact-checking site for tech marketing claims, kind of like what Snopes is for politicians.

 

[Vorado]

Intel is only about gaming ? A pc or laptop is not just for games ....Buy a Xbox or PS if you wanna play ....

 

[Dante Uchiha]

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.

It would have no problem if it was laptop marketing, but it's not. Unfortunately not everyone realizes that, and the dark tactics move the masses once again...

 

[bogmali]

Can we please stop calling each other names and derail the thread? Last warning.

Or inserting political bias into this........where does that fit in here anyway? I edited/deleted the culprits post and remind everyone (once again) to refrain from doing it.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

It seems pretty disingenuous to me. You can quickly flip the script and pull up a 16” MBP and show how it is much more expensive and not as performant in the same collection of games, even under Windows and boot camp.

This must be Intel’s direction with their new “don’t look at benchmarks” approach. They are implying that their CPU is both faster and cheaper, when it has little correlation to either factor in this comparison. When their claim is properly scrutinized, they can just say they were just comparing 2 gaming laptops and one was clearly better. They know the graph will be plastered on demo models, and that’s all they need to get them and their OEM partners a sale. It might even be a new form of Intel punishment for those OEMs that broke rank and built AMD machines.

 

[Valantar]

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.

But this isn't based on price - they've chosen one of the more expensive Ryzen-based gaming laptops out there and are comparing it against MSI's budget-oriented 15.6" Intel-based gaming laptop. And then bragging that it is cheaper? Yeah, still a false equivalency. A much more apt comparison would be the Asus TUF A15 or the new HP Omen 15, both of which pair the 4800H with a 2060 max-P/non-max-Q. The TUF starts at $999, btw.

So, either Intel chose a lower power SKU in a thin-and-light (14" 1.6kg) chassis to compare against a full power SKU in a normal size (15.6" 2.3kg) laptop, showing that - shocker! - more power is faster! Or they chose a more expensive, more premium thin-and-light and compared it against a full size laptop, showing that - again, shocker! - the one that isn't a thin-and-light delivers more value for money.

 

[Casecutter]

Is it surprising that a CPU permitted to use nearly 30% more power wins by 20%?

 

[WeeRab]

The guys at AdoredTV have done a deep dive analysis of Intel's BS.
Intel are using already discredited Sysmark and all sorts of other BS graphs and NONE of the mainstream rendering programs to 'prove' they're better.

They are in full-on panic mode now, that AMD are about to take major market share off them in the mobile space too.

 

[noel_fs]

holy fucking shit they are going insane

 

[InVasMani]

AMD vs Intel
35w vs 45w TDP
3.0GHz base clock vs 2.6GHz base clock
4.3GHz boost vs 5.0GHz boost clock
RTX2060 MaxQ vs RTX2060

I think I'd go with the AMD myself. I imagine the Intel would throttle more and I can't imagine it's battery life is comparison unless the laptop itself is over compensating with a larger battery capacity. That said the Intel system is also a fair bit cheaper as well so it's not that unfair a comparison. It would seem AMD needs to lower it's pricing or not depends how big the market is if it's got more favorable battery life and overall sound level acoustics under full load. There are clearly discrepancies between the two systems beyond the CPU's and their overall designs though that part is certain.

Is it surprising that a CPU permitted to use nearly 30% more power wins by 20%?

Indeed though it's also cheaper so there is that relevant aspect, but beyond that it's the laptop market which is defiantly different than desktop usage that doesn't have battery usage concerns that come into play. I mean anyone buying a laptop is going to at least take into consideration the overall battery life to some degree some more so others less so. That is defiantly a fairly major consideration for some outside of raw performance alone. It's also worth noting and knowing if they can throttle at all or not stock new at retail and if so how much under heavy load as well how close they are to throttling if they don't quite throttle because 1-2 years down the road when they've built up a fair bit of dust inside that's clogged up the heatsink cooling inside that laptop case might they throttle and hamper performance figures? I need more in depth analysis in a comparison like this if it's going to be made by either company as a consumer.

 

[Valantar]

AMD vs Intel
35w vs 45w TDP
3.0GHz base clock vs 2.6GHz base clock
4.3GHz boost vs 5.0GHz boost clock
RTX2060 MaxQ vs RTX2060

I think I'd go with the AMD myself. I imagine the Intel would throttle more and I can't imagine it's battery life is comparison unless the laptop itself is over compensating with a larger battery capacity. That said the Intel system is also a fair bit cheaper as well so it's not that unfair a comparison. It would seem AMD needs to lower it's pricing or not depends how big the market is if it's got more favorable battery life and overall sound level acoustics under full load. There are clearly discrepancies between the two systems beyond the CPU's and their overall designs though that part is certain.

Indeed though it's also cheaper so there is that relevant aspect, but beyond that it's the laptop market which is defiantly different than desktop usage that doesn't have battery usage concerns that come into play. I mean anyone buying a laptop is going to at least take into consideration the overall battery life to some degree some more so others less so. That is defiantly a fairly major consideration for some outside of raw performance alone. It's also worth noting and knowing if they can throttle at all or not stock new at retail and if so how much under heavy load as well how close they are to throttling if they don't quite throttle because 1-2 years down the road when they've built up a fair bit of dust inside that's clogged up the heatsink cooling inside that laptop case might they throttle and hamper performance figures? I need more in depth analysis in a comparison like this if it's going to be made by either company as a consumer.

Again, can people please stop acting like the Zephyrus G14 is the only Ryzen 4000 gaming laptop in existence? The issue here is not that Intel is comparing two different laptops, it is that Intel is deliberately comparing two different laptops to make theirs look better, instead of using a more like-for-like comparison like the TUF A15.

If you want a cheaper Ryzen 4000 gaming laptop, there are a few to choose from. The difference is that you also have the option for a 16mm/14"/1.6kg laptop with great gaming performance if you go Ryzen, while nothing like this exists on the blue team. Sure, Ryzen 4000 laptops have been slow to arrive, but they exist nonetheless.

 

[Fluffmeister]

Poor Nvidia, caught up in the nasty fight between the duopoly that want a slice of every pie.

 

[Dave65]

You all are to stupid to see what Intel did there.. At least that is what Intel is hoping!
Shame on you, Intel, SHAME

 

[cucker tarlson]

it's a bogus chart no matter how you look at it.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

I am going to say something extremely mean but I can't help it. The thing is that they haven't failed, I don't think your average Intel customers has the, ehm, ability to discern between these details.

Dont let an intel fanboi hear you say that! the sky will fall!

 

[InVasMani]

Again, can people please stop acting like the Zephyrus G14 is the only Ryzen 4000 gaming laptop in existence? The issue here is not that Intel is comparing two different laptops, it is that Intel is deliberately comparing two different laptops to make theirs look better, instead of using a more like-for-like comparison like the TUF A15.

If you want a cheaper Ryzen 4000 gaming laptop, there are a few to choose from. The difference is that you also have the option for a 16mm/14"/1.6kg laptop with great gaming performance if you go Ryzen, while nothing like this exists on the blue team. Sure, Ryzen 4000 laptops have been slow to arrive, but they exist nonetheless.

That's more your issue not mine. I don't know what hte TUF A15 is like comparatively so I can't and won't comment on that, but in terms of the comparison made I feel Intel made some valid comparisons in this instance. Being object it being faster at gaming while being cheaper at the same time is a fair enough comparison to make. Sure it has negatives, but what was so terrible with Intel pointing to a more expensive laptop that it's cheaper laptop beats at gaming for less money!!?

it's a bogus chart no matter how you look at it.

AMD is free to refute Intel's benchmark results with some of their own or run different benchmarks highlighting why it's more costly in the first place. Cost most defiantly comes into play when comparing two laptops that are priced $150's apart from each other. I didn't dig that deeply into each, but hey if the cheaper one beats the other for less money it is what it is.