Intel Shows That Their 9th Gen Core CPU Lineup Is Faster Than AMD Ryzen 3000 In Everything Except Cinebench

Thunder 57

Senior member
Aug 19, 2007
805
485
136
It's a total joke.

They’re running a 12-core part and we’re running an eight-core.
Yet they limit SPEC to one thread.

And who gives a crap about Sysmark? Show me some transcoding numbers, Intel. And honestly, who should trust Sysmark after the BS numbers they gave during the P4 era which resulted in a class action lawsuit?
 
Last edited:

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,440
642
126
This quote from the article sums it up for me.

Now while these benchmarks are interesting, I would like to state that our own reviews for the Ryzen 3000 series processors and those from other tech outlets paint an entirely different picture. We have recognized the Ryzen 3000 parts as the most competitive lineup ever delivered by AMD, offering superb single-threaded performance increases and even better multi-threaded boosts, something that Intel is completely dismissing in their ‘Real-World’ tests. Again, this feels more like a publicity stunt by Intel to shift the mindset of mainstream consumers but the market share isn’t in Intel’s favor at the moment.
 

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,037
789
126
A good laugh, worthy of being posted for the fun :

We start with an In house bench, and they are right, it s the best proxy....



Then WEBXPRT3 , an inhouse bench "further" devellopped by Principles(sness..) Technologies, infamous for their comparison of 8C Intel vs an AMD Ryzen with 4 cores disabled...



And of course some big lies like a 9700K being faster than a 3900X in compute intensive apps, wonder what are those so much computive tasks that a 8C/8T is faster than a 12C/24T 3900X....




Edit, the compute heavy task is :

Compute intensive benchmark performance (SPECrate2017_int_base 1T)
 
Last edited:

Thunder 57

Senior member
Aug 19, 2007
805
485
136
@Abwx Like I said, its a joke. To expand on my quote, that was not from the article, but from Intel (emphasis mine):

“A year ago when we introduced the i9 9900K,” says Intel’s Troy Severson, “it was dubbed the fastest gaming CPU in the world. And I can honestly say nothing’s changed. It’s still the fastest gaming CPU in the world. I think you’ve heard a lot of press from the competition recently, but when we go out and actually do the real-world testing, not the synthetic benchmarks, but doing real-world testing of how these games perform on our platform, we stack the 9900K against the Ryzen 9 3900X. They’re running a 12-core part and we’re running an eight-core.
Yet they go ahead and run SPECrate2017_int_base 1T like you said. So no, your not "running a 12 core and we're running an eight-core". You are running a one core vs a one core. This buffoonery just makes them look even more silly to those that are "in the know".

I see he is trying to hide behind that by focusing on gaming, but games aren't that well threaded. Let's see a 3800X against your 9900K in games Intel, not much will change.
 

Panino Manino

Member
Jan 28, 2017
108
75
71
Then WEBXPRT3 , an inhouse bench "further" devellopped by Principles(sness..) Technologies, infamous for their comparison of 8C Intel vs an AMD Ryzen with 4 cores disabled...
I have the impression that Intel used the numbers from the launch day bios which had lower performance, see, the Ryzen is not just "on par":
https://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Intel-Real-Usage-Performance-Tests_9th-Gen-Intel-Core-vs-AMD-Ryzen-3000-CPUs_11.jpg

https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph14605/111180.png
 

ondma

Senior member
Mar 18, 2018
524
100
76
@Abwx Like I said, its a joke. To expand on my quote, that was not from the article, but from Intel (emphasis mine):



Yet they go ahead and run SPECrate2017_int_base 1T like you said. So no, your not "running a 12 core and we're running an eight-core". You are running a one core vs a one core. This buffoonery just makes them look even more silly to those that are "in the know".

I see he is trying to hide behind that by focusing on gaming, but games aren't that well threaded. Let's see a 3800X against your 9900K in games Intel, not much will change.
The context of that comment was gaming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GaiaHunter

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
13,040
2,705
136
Intel can fight it out with every independent reviewing outfit if they like. Let's just sit back and watch the fireworks. Meanwhile you still can't find a 3900x in stock. They sell out almost instantly wherever they go on sale.

Next I want Intel to try and contradict all the Rome benchmarks. Do it, Intel! Do it!
 

nicalandia

Member
Jan 10, 2019
145
86
61
O
I have the impression that Intel used the numbers from the launch day bios which had lower performance, see, the Ryzen is not just "on par":
From one of the Pictures on "Really Small Print" it reads: "Performance Results are based on testing as of July 23, 2019 and may not reflect all publicly available security updates" So I think that by that date is not including the latest Vulnerability found by Bitdefender ?
 

Thunder 57

Senior member
Aug 19, 2007
805
485
136
The context of that comment was gaming.
I am aware of that, but they could have chosen an eight core to compare it too but didn't, because there would be no difference in games. Then, in another test, they handicap the 3900X by limiting it to one thread. It's one sided and biased but that is to be expected I guess. Also, you really can't be taken seriously on this issue with your username being what it is.

Intel can fight it out with every independent reviewing outfit if they like. Let's just sit back and watch the fireworks. Meanwhile you still can't find a 3900x in stock. They sell out almost instantly wherever they go on sale.

Next I want Intel to try and contradict all the Rome benchmarks. Do it, Intel! Do it!
Simple. They will use something that is AVX 512 heavy and limit it to one core ;).
 

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,440
642
126
Meanwhile you still can't find a 3900x in stock. They sell out almost instantly wherever they go on sale.
Microcenter in SoCal has been showing 10+ in stock for 5-6 days now. I'm not sure if inventory is borked or if they just got a huge shipment.

From one of the Pictures on "Really Small Print" it reads: "Performance Results are based on testing as of July 23, 2019 and may not reflect all publicly available security updates" So I think that by that date is not including the latest Vulnerability found by Bitdefende ?
It doesn't necessarily mean they applied any at all. All's it really states is the date they tested. Most likely they mentioned the security updates as they purposely avoided using some of them so they wouldn't hamper performance. It would be cheesy if they didn't apply any of them or just a select few and avoided the one's that had the largest impact on performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: beginner99

dmens

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2005
1,862
38
91
Hehehe, real world usage. Back in the late 2000's Intel ran the same scam for "real world power". The talent-less REDACTED of an "engineer" who accepted the task to deliver the fake testing methodology to justify this scam was rewarded with a fast-track promotion to senior PE.

Good times.

We have a zero tolerance policy for profanity in the tech sub-forums.

Iron Woode

Super Moderator
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TheGiant

Senior member
Jun 12, 2017
520
201
86
this is what Intel does very well...if they only did so with their current mess of products....
 

UsandThem

Super Moderator
May 4, 2000
11,234
1,812
136
Intel doesn't even need to do this sort of thing (just like that paid "review" they got caught in around a year ago).

The 9900K is a really good CPU, and it is at the top (or near the top) in just about every usage scenario. It really can sell itself for people wanting to stay with Intel. Yeah, all the security bugs took some performance away from it (and all the other Skylake based CPUs), but they are still great performing CPUs

Intel biggest problem was the way Intel dramatically increased the prices on their 9th gen CPUs, and removed hyper-threading from their i7 lineup. I mean the 9900k still sells well, but it really opened a door for AMD to strongly compete with their 2700X (and especially the 3700X now). Sometimes Intel's arrogance gets in their way, and part of the reason they are so behind schedule with the true Skylake successor (not counting the Skylake++++).
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
13,040
2,705
136
I I mean the 9900k still sells well, but it really opened a door for AMD to strongly compete with it with their 2700X (and especially the 3700X now).
3900x is the real problem. Same price, better performance on a lot of things. In some cases, stunningly better performance. The 3700x is also an embarrassment since it can hang with a 9900k in a lot of things for only $329 (and unlike a 3900x, you can easily buy one). But Intel is no stranger to charging a premium for something maybe 5% better. The 3900x is a whole 'nother ballgame.
 

UsandThem

Super Moderator
May 4, 2000
11,234
1,812
136
3900x is the real problem. Same price, better performance on a lot of things. In some cases, stunningly better performance. The 3700x is also an embarrassment since it can hang with a 9900k in a lot of things for only $329 (and unlike a 3900x, you can easily buy one). But Intel is no stranger to charging a premium for something maybe 5% better. The 3900x is a whole 'nother ballgame.
If they priced their 9900K say at $399, I likely would have stayed with Intel when I upgraded my PC. But since it was priced too high (IMO) when the 2700X closed the gap between the two companies, the AMD CPUs were just such a better value (and why I went with AMD this round).

I agree the 3900X is a great CPU for enthusiasts, professionals, and power users, but I think the 3700X at $329 is the champ for $ / performance for the mainstream users (gamers, desktop, dabbling in movie / photo editing).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY