Intel compares its processors to AMD Ryzen 3000 in a “real-world” benchmark
Published by Intel a comparison of its processors with the AMD Ryzen 3000 in tests in the "real world", according to the company's belief.
It is undeniable that Intel in recent years has recruited the best engineers to develop and improve its products. It also has a powerful marketing and communication team, or at least it looks like it. I'm still waiting for Intel to come out to explain past production problems. It has not been until now that they have recognized that Bryan Krzanich went over braking with 10nm and hence the delay.
The latest genius of Intel's marketing division has been to launch a comparison between its processors and the Ryzen 3000. A comparison without feet or head, since its processors for "the real world" are twice as expensive as those of AMD. Not only that, they look like bloody Gruyère cheese and they just make you lose performance.
Intel compares its "real world" processors to the Ryzen 300
Okay, the marketing strategy is based on highlighting that users do not use Cinebench. This software, the more cores you have and the more frequencies, the better results it gives (in multicore). Sure, most users want a processor for browsing, video streaming, office automation, and gaming. The first three tasks have a negligible impact on processing, only the game speeds up performance.
Some brilliant minds have seen fit to think that it would be nice to compare their processors to the competition under Sysmark. Specifically, the Intel Core i7-9700K (8C / 8H - € 445), the Core i9-9900K (8C / 16H - € 481) and the Ryzen 9 3900X (12C / 24H - € 547) are compared. The Ryzen 7 3700X (8C / 16H - € 361) and the Ryzen 7 3700X (8C / 16H - € 451) are missing from the list.
According to data published by Intel, the Core i9-9900K is 7% and the Core i7-9700K is 3% faster than the Ryzen 9 3900X under Sysmark 2018. In Triple A games the Core i9 is 6% and the Core i7 2% faster than AMD processor.
Under SPECrate2017_int_base 1T the Core i9 is 9% more powerful and the Core i7 is 6% more powerful. In WebXPRT 3 - Edge, the Core i9 is 3% faster and the Core i7 is on par with the Ryzen 9. Multicore comparison has also been introduced in Cinebench. The Core i9 gives a result of 0.65x and the Core i7 a result of 0.49x compared to the Ryzen 9. Translated, the Core i9 is 35% slower and the Core i7 is 51% slower than the Ryzen 9.
The parallel "real world" in which Intel lives
Trying to justify the extra cost of your processors with an improvement of 2-9% does not make the slightest sense. In games the difference is minimal and more and more users are using their systems for streaming and tasks that benefit from the number of cores. Intel's justification is absurd.
The company must stop making a fool of itself and launch processors immune to vulnerabilities. Every time a vulnerability comes out, Intel processors lose power. They should stop making a fool of themselves and take out the processors in 10nm, that people are tired of refried.
Source: wccftech
