Intel Claims Its Cheaper To Build A Faster Gaming PC With Its 10th Gen Core CPUs Than AMD Ryzen 3000

CuriousTomCat · 20 Aug 2020 at 14:00

I'd respect them if they pulled 6 games out the hat at random and Intel were faster in 4 games while AMD were faster in only 2. That would be better for marketing surely?

A cherry picked selection like this where they're the fastest means absolutely nothing.

jigger · 20 Aug 2020 at 14:19

CuriousTomCat said:
I'd respect them if they pulled 6 games out the hat at random and Intel were faster in 4 games while AMD were faster in only 2. That would be better for marketing surely?

A cherry picked selection like this where they're the fastest means absolutely nothing.

It's odd considering the recommended specs for those games are 2-4 core DDR2-3 systems and DirectX 9-10 graphics.

~>Dg<~ · 20 Aug 2020 at 14:19

humbug said:
Well, they used AMD's second most expensive CPU vs a lower end Intel CPU to claim the "Budget choice" a more suitable CPU to compare to the 10700K is a 3700X.

You don't need 12 cores 24 threads for games. Well there are one or two that will help but Intel are not using those games because they get curb stomped in them.

doesnt matter what amd cpu they use they are slower than intel so what they say is true. no debate and even amd used a 8700 non k as a comparision of what current gen amd cpus are the same as in games. people will still argue debate about this but AMD themselves shown this in their own press release.

really looking forward to the next cpus though gunna do a build with them. looking tasty.

humbug · 20 Aug 2020 at 14:23

CuriousTomCat said:
I'd respect them if they pulled 6 games out the hat at random and Intel were faster in 4 games while AMD were faster in only 2. That would be better for marketing surely?

A cherry-picked selection like this where they're the fastest means absolutely nothing.

Essentially this is what they did. on the bottom slide...

The left side of the slide Intel admit losing in 6 out of 30 games, in the main part on the right Intel have 24 games, highlighted in yellow they claim, rightfully i'm sure, they win by >3% in 13 of them while the games that are not highlighted they say they are on parr, that's 11 games.

That slide is actually pretty honest and reasonable, if it was not for the choice in CPU's to make the "Budget choice" claim. AMD win 6, on par 11, lose 13.

The top one they just picked the 6 games they have the biggest margins they could find and published that, this is much more Ryan Shrout... Off the top of my head there are a couple of games where AMD could do exactly the same thing with the 3900XT vs the 10900K and rightfully claim the 3900XT is 15% faster.

@~>Dg<~ get a grip.

jigger · 20 Aug 2020 at 14:31

~>Dg<~ said:
doesnt matter what amd cpu they use they are slower than intel so what they say is true. no debate and even amd used a 8700 non k as a comparision of what current gen amd cpus are the same as in games. people will still argue debate about this but AMD themselves shown this in their own press release.

really looking forward to the next cpus though gunna do a build with them. looking tasty.

A couple of Intel CPU have offered borderline meaningful performance gains since Ryzen when looking a some titles, but that is mostly in very specific/unrealistic cases.

humbug · 20 Aug 2020 at 14:49

The problem Intel have is large reviewers are just not willing to play their game, someone like Hardware Unboxed do massive 30+ game benchmarks and most of it is 6 to 8% to intel with a couple of 15% outliers, this at 1080P with a 2080TI, it actually looks a lot like Intel's second slide.

Even when comparing the 10700K vs the 3900XT people still think "well i'm getting 4 extra cores so i can edit my gaming exploits in Davinci Resolve in about half the time..." AMD's CPU's are just more rounded for modern users, Intel are a bit one trick pony and that trick is not that impressive.

Tetras · 20 Aug 2020 at 15:28

jigger said:
So benchmarks matter again? I thought we had to go by our feels.

burn

sideways14a · 20 Aug 2020 at 15:35

Intels one trick pony is about to be put down, i cannot see the 10 series withstanding the onslaught from Zen3 at all.
Someone take it out back with the shotgun and do the deed we all know needs to be done :-)

subbytna · 20 Aug 2020 at 18:56

humbug said:
Whats fascinating is that Intel are now shouting about being the budget option, how times change....

I was going to post the EXACT same thing....how times have changed indeed ha

Shac · 20 Aug 2020 at 20:17

However its not a true budget comparison is it when the 3600 could have been used and probably have the exact same gaming performance.

merlin6r · 20 Aug 2020 at 23:11

Shac said:
However its not a true budget comparison is it when the 3600 could have been used and probably have the exact same gaming performance.

You make a fair point. I don't think Intel want to do the same....

Dave2150 · 20 Aug 2020 at 23:53

Still find it amazing that Intel's 5 year old architecture on a 5.5 year old process still outperforms brand new ryzen on brand new process in gaming.

Whether it be 1% faster, or 25% faster, it's still faster, and I was very disappointed that the Ryzen 3000 series couldn't match Skylake.

spoffle · 21 Aug 2020 at 00:06

Dave2150 said:
Still find it amazing that Intel's 5 year old architecture on a 5.5 year old process still outperforms brand new ryzen on brand new process in gaming.

Whether it be 1% faster, or 25% faster, it's still faster, and I was very disappointed that the Ryzen 3000 series couldn't match Skylake.

IPC is the most important factor, add all the Intel vulnerabilities into the equation, and we can see why Intel has been ahead. Because they sacrificed security for performance.

Let's also not forget that Intel's R&D expenditure is twice that of AMD's entire yearly turnover.

KentMan · 21 Aug 2020 at 06:44

But only fps matters! That is the only metric that matters! Intel us the fastest in FPS! Thats all that matters!

Im being sarcastic....

You cant be *budget* when your showing off benchmarks with a 2080ti, that is not how it works

Ian Evey · 21 Aug 2020 at 09:22

Intel isn’t cheaper for similar performance.

If it was faster nobody would be buying Ryzens by the bucket load whether it is a 3300 or a 3800.

3900 ryzens are a little niche that still perform well in games but plough through any other tasks.

G J · 21 Aug 2020 at 11:06

Shock horror as company uses the same tactics that most other tech companies/fanboys/shills/corporate simps/youtubers/forum posters etc do.

Calin Banc · 21 Aug 2020 at 20:52

Minstadave said:
Why use a 2080Ti though? I bet the difference is a lot less when they use a GPU that someone building on a budget will use.

High refresh rates users will kinda need that power for 100fps+ at high settings. Plus, the new generation of cards should make 2080ti more of a mainstream kind of performance, while higher tier cards will allow higher fps (as in more than 60), with greater ease at 1440p and 4k. Well, at lest in those types of games.

Normally the devs should be more "ryzen aware" in the future and optimize accordingly (more so since consoles will use the same architecture), so, hopefully, coding around ryzen's weaknesses should decrease Intel's lead.

Grim5 · 21 Aug 2020 at 22:48

Dave2150 said:
Still find it amazing that Intel's 5 year old architecture on a 5.5 year old process still outperforms brand new ryzen on brand new process in gaming.

Whether it be 1% faster, or 25% faster, it's still faster, and I was very disappointed that the Ryzen 3000 series couldn't match Skylake.

I find it interesting that Intel's best can't match Ryzen 3000 with RTX3000 and Big Navi graphics cards - Is what you'll be saying in a few weeks, Mark my words

And then when ryzen 4000 drops oh lawdy, Intel shareholders will be on suicide watch

Aretak · 22 Aug 2020 at 02:56

Rroff said:
I've not kept up with the situation on the 10K series side but generally Intel hasn't needed as high RAM speed - due to the architecture on AMD's side there is a big increase in performance upto around 3000-3200MHz - Intel could have stuck them both on slower RAM to spoil the AMD performance results but then I guess it would struggle with the cost narrative.

Intel systems can still benefit hugely from faster RAM, especially in CPU-limited scenarios. And not just faster RAM, but tightened timings as well, as with AMD. It depends on the software to some degree, but almost everything sees a healthy gain to lows at the very least.

https://kingfaris.co.uk/ram/1

Rroff · 22 Aug 2020 at 03:00

Aretak said:
And not just faster RAM, but tightened timings as well

A lot of the benefits on the Intel side come at tighter timings - not necessarily win out in every scenario but often provide the best balance of most advantages and smallest penalities versus just turning the frequency up (once you've got the frequency past a certain point).