Intel Marketing Claims i5-9600KF Better than 3800X, i3-9350KF Better than 3600X

[btarunr]

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.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Vayra86]

Intel = laughing stock bash in 3.2.1...

For some substance on this topic...

Its quite an interesting comparison to make and actually, Intel isn't entirely wrong here. In games where the thread count matters (Kingdom Come Deliverance is a good example) Ryzen easily gets 25-30% higher FPS peaks. Yet in for example AC you see the 9350K consistently on top (and not just a little bit!), and taken from all games, there are a few more examples where the Intel option is still leading. Pretty interesting.

But, kids, don't buy quad cores no more k?

 

[Outback Bronze]

Intel = laughing stock bash in 3.2.1...

Yeah, lols.

 

[dj-electric]

Everyone is being mad at Intel's marketing for telling lies to people,
But when my head and shoulders shampoo claims to vanish almost all dandruff and fails, nobody comes to my rescue.

 

[Kelarik]

If you check the description of that video, the AMD's at stock speeds, while the Intel's running at 5GHz all-core. Not all that useful a comparison if we're going to be OCing one but not the other

 

[ratirt]

Real world benchmarks by Intel. No shame whatsoever. Ryzen has higher IPC than any Intel 9th gen product. People will believe this. On the other hand there's definitely some people that will believe Intel's propaganda scheme and that's when the laughing bash starts

Everyone is being mad at Intel's marketing for telling lies to people,
But when my head and shoulders shampoo claims to vanish almost all dandruff and fails, nobody comes to my rescue.

Yeah same thing. The only difference is, you don't need to pay around 1000$ to find out that it's not how it's advertised.

 

[Turmania]

The only part I agree with all this is the system stability and drivers more being upto date. Which in my case is a very serious and very important factor.

 

[ratirt]

The only part I agree with all this is the system stability and drivers more being upto date. Which in my case is a very serious and very important factor.

Stability and drivers? I got Ryzen 2700x and I haven't noticed any driver issues or stability issues since day one. This is marketing scheme again and totally not justified claim.

 

[Kohl Baas]

Stability and drivers? I got Ryzen 2700x and I haven't noticed any driver issues or stability issues since day one. This is marketing scheme again and totally not justified claim.

Same here with my 1700. The only problems I faced is that there were no decent out-of-the-box memory solutions when the firts gen kicked off. Now with that being updated, I had literally no problems with it at all. It's just works. And doing it 24/7 with about 1 restart/month.

 

[GlacierNine]

@btarunr Is it your phrasing, or the slide, that claims "better IPC" bta?

Because right now Intel doesn't have better IPC, they have higher clocks. Ryzen is a few % faster clock-for-clock.

I see reviewers and tech press routinely confuse IPC(Instructions Per Clock), for a measure of Per-Thread Performance, so it's not that unusual, but if Intel are claiming to have superior IPC, rather than "Superior Per-Core Performance", then that's an outright lie and they know it.

 

[ratirt]

Same here with my 1700. The only problems I faced is that there were no decent out-of-the-box memory solutions when the firts gen kicked off. Now with that being updated, I had literally no problems with it at all. It's just works. And doing it 24/7 with about 1 restart/month.

Yes. When you don't have nothing to show for with your product, Intel at this moment, you give examples like stability or drivers or "real world benchmarks". Which gives an impression that this is something legit and of great importance. While it really is to draw attention to something else due to lack of where the importance really is.

@btarunr Is it your phrasing, or the slide, that claims "better IPC" bta?

Because right now Intel doesn't have better IPC, they have higher clocks. Ryzen is a few % faster clock-for-clock.

I see reviewers and tech press routinely confuse IPC(Instructions Per Clock), for a measure of Per-Thread Performance, so it's not that unusual, but if Intel are claiming to have superior IPC, rather than "Superior Per-Core Performance", then that's an outright lie and they know it.

I think it is what Intel claims it is not OP's conclusion.

 

[kanecvr]

The only part I agree with all this is the system stability and drivers more being upto date. Which in my case is a very serious and very important factor.

What stability and driver issues are you talking about? I have 3 ryzen machine (1st gen itx, 2nd gen atx and a 3rd ryzen laptop) and all of them run flawlesly. I'm not even using top of the line parts - the itx system runs an asrock x370 board yes, but the atx machine uses a B450 gigabyte board and my laptop is a entry-mid range gaming machine (asus TUF FX505DT). I've never encountered driver or stability issues with any of them.

 

[r.h.p]

Stability and drivers? I got Ryzen 2700x and I haven't noticed any driver issues or stability issues since day one. This is marketing scheme again and totally not justified claim.

same been using 2700X for 1 year now no issues or complaints

 

[Mysteoa]

Did they used the bribed up UserBenchmark for this?

 

[ratirt]

Did they used the bribed up UserBenchmark for this?

No they used "Real World Benchmark" which tells nothing and God knows what is that or what Intel means exactly But it is great honestly (sarcasm )

 

[HenrySomeone]

Intel = laughing stock bash in 3.2.1...

Its quite an interesting comparison to make and actually, Intel isn't entirely wrong here. In games where the thread count matters (Kingdom Come Deliverance is a good example) Ryzen easily gets 25-30% higher FPS peaks. Yet in for example AC you see the 9350K consistently on top (and not just a little bit!), and taken from all games, there are a few more examples where the Intel option is still leading. Pretty interesting.

But, kids, don't buy quad cores no more k?

They are quite right, gaming-wise and most office-type-use-wise as well, not to mention platform stability and robustness... Still though, quad cores without hyperthreading nowadays aren't exactly the wisest purchase.

 

[y0y0]

Yet in for example AC you see the 9350K consistently on top (and not just a little bit!), and taken from all games, there are a few more examples where the Intel option is still leading. Pretty interesting.

https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-3600/images/ac-odyssey-1920-1080.png

AMD Ryzen 5 3600 vs Intel Core i5-9600K - Test procesorów | PurePC.pl

AMD Ryzen 5 3600 vs Intel Core i5-9600K - Test procesorów (strona 17) Test i porównanie procesorów AMD Ryzen 5 3600 i Intel Core i5-9600K w grach i programach. Który jest wydajniejszy? Który warto kupić? Który będzie lepszym wyborem do gier

www.purepc.pl

wat? next time check your source..

 

[natr0n]

Intel needs some laxatives because its packed full of shit currently.

 

[Vya Domus]

Intel processors have "smooth and stable drivers" compared to AMD

This is it, the stupidest thing I heard in a very long time.

Ya'll updated your CPU drivers yet ?

 

[GlacierNine]

This is it, the stupidest thing I heard in a very long time.

You post here *way* too much for that to actually be true.

 

[john_]

Well, Intel is much more compatible than AMD, and it is easy to prove this.

Look all those nice and useful malwares. Totally compatible with Intel, totally incompatible with AMD.

 

[stimpy88]

Shrout at it again...

 

[theonek]

Well, Intel is much more compatible than AMD, and it is easy to prove this.

Look all those nice and useful malwares. Totally compatible with Intel, totally incompatible with AMD.

don't forget that both brand of cpu are using the same instructions to operate with os for example, they are not arm or risc based, it's a x86 platform so it's a time based only someone to use amd vulnerabilities, because they have too as the platform is the same....

 

[NerdSafin]

Intel already have a rough time on desktop & HEDT, and this marketing BS just make it even worse for them. I would like to see Intel start to giving information of their 10th gen desktop rather than this kind of 'marketing' just to keeping their marketshare

 

[Vya Domus]

You post here *way* too much for that to actually be true.

Yeah but few come out of the mouth of a company worth several hundreds of billions.