• Hey there, Guest! Share your idea for a new trophy in the forums and win bragging rights and a $100 Amazon gift card! Check out the New Community Trophy Contest here!
  • Pardon our dust as we work on some regularly scheduled forum maintenance. You may notice some missing features during this time. Thank you for your patience!

AMD Responds to Intel's 9th Gen Benchmarks

dudmont

Reputable
Feb 23, 2015
1,403
0
5,660
198
AMD should focus it's energies on improving the IPC of it's chips. I want them to improve, not complain. If they were just a few percentage points behind in IPC, then the performance gap would become a non-issue and things like features and price would be paramount. As it is, they're still lagging by enough that one has to think about what they value more, price vs performance.
 

redgarl

Distinguished
Jun 4, 2009
2,679
0
20,960
82
"But--and, yes, we're clearly biased here--it's typically better to wait for impartial reviewers to get their hands on new hardware than to trust companies' performance claims."

WHAT?!!! Just buy it! Just buy the 9900k! Toms review of the 9900k is just saying so even if the thermal, power consumption and price isn't even took into consideration with a chokable 4.5/5.
 

John Pombrio

Honorable
Mar 12, 2013
19
0
10,510
0
AMD should have released their results before the reviews came out. Now it is immaterial what the preliminary results were as the reviewers results show that the results are still in Intel's favor, just not as much as the initial report made it out to be.

As for AMD's bitter reply here, I remember when AMD published their own "benchmarks" for the Fury X two weeks before the independent reviews came out. The difference in their benchmarks and the independent benches were in about the same ballpark, 10% less than the actual results due to cherrypicking the settings for the Fury and using other settings on the GTX 980 Ti (or whatever else they were comparing it at). I learned that lesson well not to trust a company's benchmarks before the release.
 
Oct 13, 2018
2
0
10
0
It is the same with AMD it is always someone else's fault. I remember the launch of the 1800x when it performed on par with a Intel I3 of the time,

it could not be AMD's fault most said but in truth it was lower IPC performance and interconnect latency. This forced the same individual who take exception to PT testing to insist upon Higher frequency system memory to be used in order to improve the 1800X performance.

It is hard to imagine after being out of the CPU performance race for over a decade how being close without a single gaming victory would cause such ire. Unless most complaints come from AMD stock holders pretending to be gamers.
 

artk2246

Honorable
May 23, 2012
3
0
10,510
0


Do you have a link for that article? Even when it originally launched with its memory issues, I dont remember it ever performing near an I3, unless you were talking about purely single threaded workloads.
 

anghellic

Reputable
Aug 4, 2014
135
0
4,690
3
Amd has no reason to complain everyone saw through the BS Intel pulled and principled technologies even with the 2nd test so no real reason for them to complain and the fact that there is a 20% price jump for Intel new CPU for a 10% performance gain
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator


I don't see them pushing a 12 core to the mainstream. Besides it drawing more power it would have to clock loser and AMD already has a clock deficit vs Intel. The normal power draw makes sense as does the torture test, most CPUs clocked to that high of a level will pull more power.

And threadripper is meant to compete in the HEDT market. It should not be compared to LGA1151.

And this response is, in my opinion, worthless. Mainly because AMD has done their own "touting". Every company does. They are never going to show them losing to the competition. When the FX 8150 launched they picked only tests that the CPU performed better than certain Intel CPUs. Its common practice.

Intel does need to get pricing under control though.
 
Oct 19, 2018
1
0
10
0


Ah yes... Armchair engineers ; love em'!

AMD should also make their chips 5x faster while they're at it . Oh and halve power consumption , at 99$ or less .
Also , i need those by sunday !
 

mlee 2500

Reputable
Oct 20, 2014
270
0
4,780
0
All AMD has done here is further prove that you shouldn't get performance or product reviews from EITHER vendor, nor their paid shills.
 

deksman

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2011
191
0
18,680
0
Dudmont

Actually, Intel only has 4% IPC advantage over Zen+... the rest of the gains are predominantly coming from higher frequencies Intel can achieve on its manuf. process (AMD cannot because the GLOFO 14/12nm process is designed for low clocks and mobile parts) and developers perhaps using Intel code to optimise workloads (which will of course give Intel a bit of a further advantage - this is seen in some content creation software).

7nm should take care of the clocks as AMD is expecting over 5GhZ on that node... so technically, their Zen 2 3700 CPU at 65W should technically speaking EXCEED Intel i9 9900K in IPC, frequencies and efficiency.
 
Oct 20, 2018
1
0
10
0
Contrary to most of you, I believe AMD was absolutely within their rights to complain about the clearly bogus/slanted data Intel/PT put out. It was clearly a slanderous and tactically immoral move to make Intel's chip look better than it actually is at AMD's expense. Does this mean AMD is without fault? Absolutely not, but in this case, it's foolish and childish to say or insinuate that AMD was "wrong" for defending their product.
 

ddcservices

Prominent
Oct 12, 2017
2
0
510
0
The problem is that Intel does have the faster chip with the i9-9900k, so did not need to resort to skewed results or anything that could be seen as dishonest or misleading. Think about it for a moment, why pay a third party to benchmark and come up with preliminary results if you know your product is actually faster than the competition?

Intel has a history of abusing its market position, so if their new product really is better, why not just drop the NDA early and let review sites publish their results sooner rather than paying a company to release bogus results?
 

Perry 1

Prominent
Jun 25, 2017
7
0
510
0
I am waiting to see if AMD has a 2800x in the shadows. If it could run at say 4.5 ghz, that would be closer to Intel's lead. I am still running 1155 systems so no matter what one I step up to, I still win.
 

redgarl

Distinguished
Jun 4, 2009
2,679
0
20,960
82


As 580$ for a CPU and 600$ for a motherboard, your mainstream platform feel a lot worst than an HEDT platform.

You can buy a 2950x with a motherboard for the same price as an 9900k + the stupid godlike motherboard.

Fact: If you put that kind of money for an 9900k, you can consider HEDT.
 

redgarl

Distinguished
Jun 4, 2009
2,679
0
20,960
82


There is something called value that reviewers like Toms are clueless about.

If you work for the government in contracts, Value is your biggest factor. Usually you get a point rated evaluation.

For example:
50% Price
50% Performance.

After that, you get the data and you make a final score... nothing like 4.5/5... just because.

The 9900k is having the worst value proposition probably ever. no way this chip would get an editor choice with a score of 90%. It is just impossible. In this case, the 9900k would get a score for price of 20% of 50% == 0.5 on 5.

For performance, it is one of the best CPU, but not the best at compute and the power consumption is terrible. 85% of 50% == 2.125 on 5.

Which gives you a wonderful 2.625 on 5... I don't get how the 9900k could be such an epic CPU.
 

bobba84

Prominent
Dec 20, 2017
33
0
540
2
AMD is like Imperial Japan, thinking they are the best kid on the block but really they are waking the sleeping giant.
 

artk2219

Distinguished
Jun 30, 2010
362
0
18,810
24


It's always been a David and Goliath battle, and Goliath always cheats. First with lawsuits, then with rebates and threats of price hikes, then with changes to the code in their compilers. We'll see if they try anything new this time around, but I got a feeling it'll be back to rebates and threats.
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator


If you only compare it with the top end motherboard then yes I agree. And I agree the cost is too high for the CPU and they need to get it down to the $400 range.

However this is not the case. You can get a Z390 board for as low as $125 right now. You don't even need to get a Z390 as a Z370 will work as well. There is actually a decent Asus Z390 for $185. Nothing is saying you need to use the board that the review used or the most expensive board that the manufacture decided to create for the people out there with more money than sense.

And no one who is going to look at mainstream CPUs is going to consider HEDT. HEDT, especially Threadripper, have a very different market. Very few people who are going to invest in a HEDT system plan to just game. Most will buy as a professional work system with gaming in mind but anyone who games will be looking at Ryzen and LGA1151.



Really? Because I can list at least one other CPU that was a vastly worse value.

The FX 9590. Launched at $900 dollars for a CPU SANS any stock cooling and that required liquid cooling to maintain its default speeds which it even then barely could keep. The biggest difference is that that CPU didn't even compete with what Intel was offering at the time. Oh and you couldn't go with the cheaper AM3+ boards. You had to buy the higher end ones with the better VRM designs for the power draw of it.

As I said price does need to come by but I would hardly put the 9900K at worst values CPU ever when there are plenty of others that were far worse.