-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Intel CEO says the industry should stop using benchmarks
- Thread starter CuriousTomCat
- Start date
From a consumer point of view, you don’t want a monopoly. So in all senses, I hope intel pulls through and learn their lesson well.
but this mantra from their CEO is not going to help them whatsoever. By ignoring metrics or trying to come up with new metrics that are subjective probably not going to fool a lot of people. OK Apple is the only tech company I can see that can pull that sort of rabbit out of a hat whereby they sell last new hardware every 12months for £1000+ that’s the iPhone. Not to mention their Mac range and the ultra expensive “so called design” accessories like the £5000 monitor stand.
you get fan boy clubs but most people buying CPU are after one thing - more computation power so they can do whatever they are doing on their coloureds faster or better.
but this mantra from their CEO is not going to help them whatsoever. By ignoring metrics or trying to come up with new metrics that are subjective probably not going to fool a lot of people. OK Apple is the only tech company I can see that can pull that sort of rabbit out of a hat whereby they sell last new hardware every 12months for £1000+ that’s the iPhone. Not to mention their Mac range and the ultra expensive “so called design” accessories like the £5000 monitor stand.
you get fan boy clubs but most people buying CPU are after one thing - more computation power so they can do whatever they are doing on their coloureds faster or better.
I think he is right to a certain degree, people are obsessing about numbers and focused upon tiny differences when, in the real world, it makes very little difference to the performance between the two major CPU manufacturers. But hey, in the world of willy waving, having a CPU that is 10 points quicker than another is important to some..
It's been pretty damn important to Intel for the last ten years... until they can't be on top of the charts, and then all of a sudden, Intel says everyone has been doing it wrong. All the Intel testing guides they send out, all the marketing they use, all the money they've been spending, none of it is how it should be done, because AMD is beating them at their own game.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2013
- Posts
- 4,144
- Location
- Scotland
The point is to separate objective and subjective points. If a cpu is 5% quicker in one system then it is objectively quicker, regarless of by how little and if a panel is better quality in one laptop than another, again that is objectively stated.
You can't benchmark user experience, colour preference, issues with the weight of a system for a specific user or anything like that but we can at least be informed of the parts of a system that objectively are better or worse.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
Works against Intel, AMD are demonstrably faster in productivity, where intel are faster 720p gaming, the frame rates are so high it doesn't actually matter, it isn't noticeable.
Intel are demonstrably higher in burning the house down power draw, and in price they are signifanctly more expensive.
So if we do as he asks, then they lose considerably more.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2015
- Posts
- 116
- Location
- Reading, UK
Come on that's not true. Up until Ryzen, Intel had a huge lead in the CPU market and it took until Ryzen 2nd Gen for major gaming gains from AMD. And its great AMD are competing and now beating intel with their CPUs but to say Intel had nothing 5 years ago when Skylake just released with Intel's first full 14nm release is just a lie. Skylake was great 5 years ago.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
I'd argue it was only ryzen 3rd gen the current gen which saw AMD make major gains in the gaming world.
I had a 1700X and I ditched it for intel. I went back when the 3600X was released.
Intel has not innovated in the last 5 years or since sky lake in terms of their fabrication certainly. I believe that’s what he meant.
They basically had a very good chip and sat on it for ages.
however what I don’t understand is they have had this 14nm fabrication for ages, they have refined it (architecture and fabrication) to such a degree that it can compete with 12nm and 7nm products. Also they must have got the fabrication efficiency really high. So why are their chips still so expensive??
But, Intel have done nothing for 4-5 years.
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,840
AMD basically had no products to complete with 5 years ago due to a failed architecture.
Intel beat AMD by miles just because their architecture wasn't a failure.
Its like winning a race against a man with one leg. Intel walked the whole distance and won easily. Intel didn't start running until they had competition from AMD.
Its been more than 3 years now... what are Intel doing, still refreshing the same architecture while trying to convince people benchmarks don't matter, for years Intel used Cinebench as the God Benchmark to show how good their CPU's are, insisting reviewers use it for that purpose, and they did, now Intel want you to drop Cinebench and benchmark Windows Media Player instead, or just not use benchmarks at all.
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,840
Yeah they're just very sore loosers. They clearly care about benchmarks after the sponsored review debacle where the AMD chip had low memory timings. I think it was the 9900K review they sponsered? Then there's that time they used an industrial water cooler at computex so they could pretend they had a 28 core 5GHz CPU. Pathetic behaviour.
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,840
Intel gave us 4 cores for 10.5 years if you go back as far as the Core2 Quad in 2007. What a joke.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2015
- Posts
- 116
- Location
- Reading, UK
I'm saying Intel had a great product 5 years ago so to say they didn't is simply not true. But yes AMD didn't have anything to compete with back then because they had released bad products the past 5 years before that and so Intel were leading.
Trying to say Intel were winning a race because AMD is so poor doesn't mean too say Intel didn't have great products back then.
Compare it to now, Intel and AMD are competing together and this is all good by the way. I want both to be pushing each other to be better not one left behind as that is bad for consumers (us). I also hope AMD can release some decent GPUs to compete with Nvidia at the top end as Nvidia pricing is ridiculous.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2015
- Posts
- 116
- Location
- Reading, UK
No actually they released mainly quad core CPUs for the mainstream mainly gaming users. They also released HEDT cpus with higher core counts for professionals and workstation production. The downside to no AMD competition for years was that the pricing on these was ridiculous.
There was also really no need for a 6 or 8 core gaming CPU back in 2012 as games simply weren't developed with multiple cores or threads in mind.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2015
- Posts
- 116
- Location
- Reading, UK
It is very ironic that he would come out to say benchmarks dont matter now when each gen release from Intel was always marketed as the best gaming CPU or best in this benchmark and so you need to upgrade.
This sounds nice
But be honest, did Intel release 6 and 8 cores to desktop finally because there appeared "a need', or because they had to answer to AMD making that move?
The way they released 8700K, 8086Kripoff, 9900K, now 10900K these were always improving single core clock speeds, so it showed gains in tasks that didn't "need" 6-8-10 cores. Means they didn't have to wait for need to appear.
@valerislysander You're just parroting Intel marketing in your defence of Intel, there are a lot of 5820K owners out there looking at "high end 4 core gamers" who sure are glad they didn't listen to Intel.
4 Cores CPU's are really cheap to make, that's why Intel tell you you don't need more than that.
4 Cores CPU's are really cheap to make, that's why Intel tell you you don't need more than that.