Intel says its processors are better than the AMD Ryzen 3000… in overclocking

The Intel and marketing thing is getting really ridiculous. We have seen how the company insisted that its processors were better at gaming or day-to-day tasks. A few FPS does not justify that its processors are more expensive and less efficient than those of the competition. Not to mention the constant vulnerability problems of its chips.

Bob Swan has had to admit that they were wrong to try get 90% market share of processors. This has led to a disaster with 10nm lithography and having more demand than production capacity. Swan highlights that the future of the company is to have a 30% share in the silicon market.

Intel's ridiculous marketing

Making Intel processors is very good, but do not take it out of this field that is lost. Intel's first attempt to launch graphics cards was an unprecedented disaster. His Optane memoirs are fine, but they aren't anything out of this world either. They have had to sell the 5G modem division for alleged anti-competitive practices by Qualcomm. And the list is very long.

Now in a briefing in the Asian Pacific market the company has said that its processors are better than the Ryzen 3000. This is something ridiculous and embarrassing that does nothing but damage the company's battered image even more.

As invented the 5-core 9600-thread Intel Core i6-6KF is better than the 7-core 3800-thread Ryzen 8 16X. The 3-core, 9350-thread Core i4-4KF is better than the 5-core, 3600-thread Ryzen 6 12X. They also say that the 3-core 9100-thread Core i4-4F is better than the 4-core 3600-thread Ryzen 6 6X.

What is their reason for saying this? Overclocking. A minority practice that must be carried out by approximately 1-5% of users who have a processor. We have gone from Intel making 'the best' gaming processors to the best ones for overclocking. Undoubtedly something ridiculous and that lacks the slightest sense.

Source: wccftech

Exit mobile version