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

[Valantar]

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!!?

Except that the slide presents this as a generally valid point with no disclaimers, which is simply not true. This is not a 1:1 comparison by any stretch of the imagination. The slide literally states that Intel platforms give you better performance at a lower price, then seeks to "prove" this by comparing a premium thin-and-light max-Q laptop to a budget max-p laptop. This is so obviously skewed that viewing it as deliberately deceptive is the only reasonable reading. It is trivial to find more expensive Intel laptops with worse performance after all, and it is similarly trivial to find cheaper AMD laptops with better performance. If you want to make a general point, your comparison needs to be representative of the market in general. This clearly isn't.

 

[InVasMani]

Except that the slide presents this as a generally valid point with no disclaimers, which is simply not true. This is not a 1:1 comparison by any stretch of the imagination. The slide literally states that Intel platforms give you better performance at a lower price, then seeks to "prove" this by comparing a premium thin-and-light max-Q laptop to a budget max-p laptop. This is so obviously skewed that viewing it as deliberately deceptive is the only reasonable reading. It is trivial to find more expensive Intel laptops with worse performance after all, and it is similarly trivial to find cheaper AMD laptops with better performance. If you want to make a general point, your comparison needs to be representative of the market in general. This clearly isn't.

All I know is the claims they made with the two laptops involved aren't untrue the Intel one is cheaper and appears to perform better for gaming at the same time. Unless you were planning to buy one or the other who really cares. Do your research before you buy either over other laptop options that might perform better for the same money or less money.

 

[Valantar]

All I know is the claims they made with the two laptops involved aren't untrue the Intel one is cheaper and appears to perform better for gaming at the same time. Unless you were planning to buy one or the other who really cares. Do your research before you buy either over other laptop options that might perform better for the same money or less money.

"Who cares" if marketing is misleading? Hopefully everyone. As for their claims? Let's do some basic text analysis.

The headline reads:
"Superior gaming performance with 10th gen Intel Core platforms at a lower price"

Note the use of the plural form "platforms" rather than saying "platform". This indicates that the statement made is intended to be understood as a generally applicable rather than specific statement - they are talking about multiple platforms, not just the one you get to see. It also thus indicates that the comparison below is meant to serve as a single example (out of many possible) of the above statement.

If this were intended only as a specific comparison, the headline would read something along the lines of "Superior gaming performance with 10th gen Intel Core and MSI for a lower price". There are of course many possible variations of this, but the one they used is clearly a general statement.

So what is this general statement? Two things: "superior gaming performance" "at a lower price". Both of which are factually true in this specific comparison, but nowhere near true in general. It also ignores that the slower laptop weighs fully ⅓ less than the cheaper one, has better build quality and more premium materials, etc.

The statement being intended to be generally true also works the other way, i.e. indicating that the AMD-based laptop in question is the best combination of performance and value available - if not, then the comparison would be invalid, as it doesn't test the statement made. Which is of course exactly the case here. There are (much) better value AMD-based laptops out there, and higher performing ones too.

Which brings us back to this being a highly problematic statement to make given that the units selected for comparison belong to different market segments and making an overall direct comparison like that is like comparing apples to oranges. If someone tried to sell you a $200 000 Lamborghini by saying it's much better value than a VW Golf with its interior covered in $300 000 worth of Swarovski crystals, would you say "yeah, that makes sense"? 'Cause I sure wouldn't.

This would be perfectly fine if they just ditched the comparison and said "Great gsming performance starting at low prices with 10th Gen Intel Core platforms". Instead, they tried to be "smart", and just ended up shooting themselves in their proverbial feet.

 

[InVasMani]

The laptop segment as a whole are a crap shoot in the first place to make comparisons and shop for unfortunately. As far as the two compared and the benchmarks and pricing it was a fair comparison in regard to gaming performance. As far as the 10th gen Intel Core platform at a lower price statement I don't know that's a wide net of a comparison to draw upon it's probably true as well in turn depending upon where you decide to look and draw comparisons refer to that first statement. I hate to say it, but laptops are a horrible thing to shop for in general and the polar opposite to the DIY PC builder market.