Intel praises AMD for 'closing the gap' but says i9-9900K is still better for gaming

[Shawn Knight]

What happened? Intel’s marketing machine was in full effect at this year’s Gamescom trade fair. While the chipmaker was willing to give revitalized rival AMD credit for “closing the gap,” Intel maintains that it still offers the best processor for gamers.

“A year ago when we introduced the i9 9900K,” said Troy Severson, Intel's sales development manager for PC gaming and VR, “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."

Severson added that you’ve probably heard a lot of press from the competition lately, “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.”

The real kicker came when Severson gave praise to their rival.

“I'll be very honest, very blunt, say, hey, they've done a great job closing the gap, but we still have the highest performing CPUs in the industry for gaming, and we're going to maintain that edge.”

Our very own Steven Walton has taken an extensive look at the two CPUs in question. In this comparison featuring 36 game benchmarks, Intel’s Core i9-9900K triumphed in most – but not all – tests against the Ryzen 9 3900X. The margin of victory wasn't always significant but a win is a win.

Of course, gaming is only part of the equation. If productivity factors into your buying decision, AMD’s offering suddenly becomes far more attractive.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/81612-intel-praises-amd-closing-gap-but-i9-9900k.html

 

[FF222]

If Intel is ready to admit to AMD having caught up to them, then this means that Intel knows that they already been left behind, and this is their way to play that down

 

[Cod3nflame]

If Intel is ready to admit to AMD having caught up to them, then this means that Intel knows that they already been left behind, and this is their way to play that down

Left behind? How? They still command over 70% of the market share. They're still worth over 90 BILLION more than AMD. You took and inch and turned it into a mile lol settle down.

 

[psycros]

"Of course, gaming is only part of the equation. If productivity factors into your buying decision, AMD’s offering suddenly becomes far more attractive."

Errr...what about price?

 

[Evernessince]

If Intel is ready to admit to AMD having caught up to them, then this means that Intel knows that they already been left behind, and this is their way to play that down

Left behind? How? They still command over 70% of the market share. They're still worth over 90 BILLION more than AMD. You took and inch and turned it into a mile lol settle down.

I'm 100% sure he wasn't referring to the marketshare lol. He is definitely referring to the architecture, which is allowing AMD to rapidly ramp core counts and have good performance. If you know any of AMD's Rome details, you'd know Intel certainly looks behind in one of it's most lucrative markets.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

Intel and Nvidia got the game on lock

 

[Lew Zealand]

9900K is the best for gaming if money's not an issue. However if you have a limited budget like most do, you can spend $300 less for an R5 3600 and put that $300 towards a better GPU to get higher framerates than the 9900K with the cheaper GPU.

 

[Cod3nflame]

9900K is the best for gaming if money's not an issue. However if you have a limited budget like most do, you can spend $300 less for an R5 3600 and put that $300 towards a better GPU to get higher framerates than the 9900K with the cheaper GPU.

That's not always true. If you're a competitive FPS ***** like I am and drop details for the sake of FPS a 9900k becomes more valuable than a higher end GPU. Dropping settings makes the CPU the bottleneck and that's where that 9900k at 5 GHz will pull away and stomp anything Ryzen.

 

[Lew Zealand]

That's not always true. If you're a competitive FPS ***** like I am and drop details for the sake of FPS a 9900k becomes more valuable than a higher end GPU. Dropping settings makes the CPU the bottleneck and that's where that 9900k at 5 GHz will pull away and stomp anything Ryzen.

Yes, I keep forgetting about high FPS gaming. The 9700K is also great for that if you want to save a bit of scratch.

 

[toooooot]

9600k is very attractive now as the price went down to just 220. I purchased 200 250 processors for a long time. And they are usually enough paired with high end graphics.
Go get 9600k or slightly cheaper equal speed processor.

 

[Cod3nflame]

"Of course, gaming is only part of the equation. If productivity factors into your buying decision, AMD’s offering suddenly becomes far more attractive."

Errr...what about price?

What about price? A 3900x/x570/DDR4 3600 combo will end up being more expensive than a 9900k/z390/DDR 3600 combo. X570 offsets Intel's price premium.

And before anyone jumps in and says you can use an old *** x470 board, no. Just, no. Buy a $500 CPU and cheap out by pairing it with a cheap motherboard? Gtfo lol

 

[Cod3nflame]

9600k is very attractive now as the price went down to just 220. I purchased 200 250 processors for a long time. And they are usually enough paired with high end graphics.
Go get 9600k or slightly cheaper equal speed processor.

It is but man I would not buy a 6 core non HT/SMT CPU. I would rather spend that same amount of money on a used 8700k.

 

[Cod3nflame]

Yes, I keep forgetting about high FPS gaming. The 9700K is also great for that if you want to save a bit of scratch.

Yea a 9700k would make more sense for a user like myself that does nothing but game and watch porn on his rig I already have a delidded 7700k that pushes my 2080 just fine so upgrading makes no sense for me. I'm waiting until something truly worthy releases whether it's AMD or Intel.

 

[Panda218]

"Of course, gaming is only part of the equation. If productivity factors into your buying decision, AMD’s offering suddenly becomes far more attractive."

Errr...what about price?

What about price? A 3900x/x570/DDR4 3600 combo will end up being more expensive than a 9900k/z390/DDR 3600 combo. X570 offsets Intel's price premium.

And before anyone jumps in and says you can use an old *** x470 board, no. Just, no. Buy a $500 CPU and cheap out by pairing it with a cheap motherboard? Gtfo lol

I cheaped out and am using my 470x which was far from cheap when I bought it... Everything working great after updating the BIOS.

GTFO lol

 

[Daniele 00]

I wish to add to mr.Severson that Intel cpu is far superior to AMD for being a better "Home Radiator".
Winter is coming, and Intel always been the best choice for making hotter your room. Just forget about computational capability and price.

 

[amstech]

Will someone please do a review of the 8/16 i7-9800X, the 10/20 i9 9900X, the 12/24 i9-9920X, the 14/28 i9-9940X, the 16/32 i9-9960X, and the 18/36 i9-9980XE compared to the 3700X, 3800X and 3900X.

Pullleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaase.
Tell Mr. Walton I will make it up to him (mumbles to myself, "he's so cute").

 

[OptimumSlinky]

Intel and Nvidia got the game on lock

Not really. The money is in servers, and AMD is absolutely crushing Intel in that space with its new EPYC chips.

 

[p51d007]

If it loads minesweeper & solitaire faster, I'm on board!

 

[didimention]

“I'll be very honest, very blunt, say, hey, they've done a great job closing the gap, but we still have the highest performing CPUs in the industry for gaming, and we're going to maintain that edge.”

Oh! Did I mention that our CPUs are also full of vulnerability.

 

[Evernessince]

9600k is very attractive now as the price went down to just 220. I purchased 200 250 processors for a long time. And they are usually enough paired with high end graphics.
Go get 9600k or slightly cheaper equal speed processor.

I don't think the 9600K is a good option. It trades blows with the 3600 in games and is destroyed in everything else. This make sense give the 3600 has hyper-threading (AMD's SMT) and the 9600K does not. It's more expensive plus it's going to need a CPU cooler. In the end you are looking at $60 extra for equal gaming performance, much less multi-threaded performance, higher cost, and high power consumption.

What about price? A 3900x/x570/DDR4 3600 combo will end up being more expensive than a 9900k/z390/DDR 3600 combo. X570 offsets Intel's price premium.

And before anyone jumps in and says you can use an old *** x470 board, no. Just, no. Buy a $500 CPU and cheap out by pairing it with a cheap motherboard? Gtfo lol

1. Ryzen 3000 CPUs can be paired with X370, B450, X470, and X570 motherboards. In fact I have an X370 taichi sitting right here you can come pick up for $120. It's VRM is overkill for the power sipping Ryzen 3000 series and could easily handle a 9900K. X570 is purely for those who want that PCIe 4.0. Otherwise, just get any X470 or X370 motherboard at a massive discount compared to launch prices.

2. Your second paragraph makes zero sense. Many of the X470 and X370 boards are very high quality. It is in no sense cheaping out. Do you also consider a $140 Intel Z390 "cheaping out" or do you just have a double standard?

 

[toooooot]

I don't think the 9600K is a good option. It trades blows with the 3600 in games and is destroyed in everything else. This make sense give the 3600 has hyper-threading (AMD's SMT) and the 9600K does not. It's more expensive plus it's going to need a CPU cooler. In the end you are looking at $60 extra for equal gaming performance, much less multi-threaded performance, higher cost, and high power consumption.



1. Ryzen 3000 CPUs can be paired with X370, B450, X470, and X570 motherboards. In fact I have an X370 taichi sitting right here you can come pick up for $120. It's VRM is overkill for the power sipping Ryzen 3000 series and could easily handle a 9900K. X570 is purely for those who want that PCIe 4.0. Otherwise, just get any X470 or X370 motherboard at a massive discount compared to launch prices.

2. Your second paragraph makes zero sense. Many of the X470 and X370 boards are very high quality. It is in no sense cheaping out. Do you also consider a $140 Intel Z390 "cheaping out" or do you just have a double standard?

Last year I built a system for someone. He used intel CPU, old Nvidia GPU and an old Sharp TV as a monitor.

And here is a problem with AMD or specifically its graphic processing unit:
Picture was grainy which never happened with his old graphics. I I tried everything I could in AMD settings and TV itself. Nothing worked. My client saved some money with AMD CPU but was very unhappy he had to upgrade his monitor. I had some other people report small annoying things with new AMD CPUs. It is a peace of mind when you go with more expensive Intel CPU.
You wanna save money, get AMD, but they need to work hard to close the gaps in compatibility and areas where intel fixed everything just because in the past 90% of the PCs used their hardware.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Not sure how your Intel CPU and Nvidia GPU became AMD products but I'll just mention that one imperfect experience is not representative of peoples' user experiences as a whole. That's just an anecdote, here's another: I have 2 AMD-based computers in the house with no problems. The Intel PCs are the same, no problems. I and other people will continue to buy the best value products out there, whether they be Intel, AMD, or Nvidia.

 

[Evernessince]

Last year I built a system for someone. He used intel CPU, old Nvidia GPU and an old Sharp TV as a monitor.

And here is a problem with AMD or specifically its graphic processing unit:
Picture was grainy which never happened with his old graphics. I I tried everything I could in AMD settings and TV itself. Nothing worked. My client saved some money with AMD CPU but was very unhappy he had to upgrade his monitor. I had some other people report small annoying things with new AMD CPUs. It is a peace of mind when you go with more expensive Intel CPU.
You wanna save money, get AMD, but they need to work hard to close the gaps in compatibility and areas where intel fixed everything just because in the past 90% of the PCs used their hardware.

I don't see how this piece of anecdotal evidence fits into the CPU conversation I was having.

I would never make a recommendation to a client based on a one off experience with a single old television set either. You need to review your business ethics if you believe that's giving any company a fair shake. My first Video card was an Nvidia MX150 that turned out to be defective but I still own an Nvidia card myself. No company is perfect.

"You wanna save money, get AMD, but they need to work hard to close the gaps in compatibility and areas where intel fixed everything just because in the past 90% of the PCs used their hardware."

1. You assume that AMD has gaps in compatibility but you submit no evidence of such

2. Clearly userbase has not helped Intel when it comes to their hardware and making sure it works in all situation without issue. From Thin Skylake PCBs bending to the crappy TIM on 4000 to 8000 series CPUs drying out and loosing contact (requiring a delid), and security issues galore. Oh, or how about the massive issues at X99 launch? These aren't even the extremely niche situations like the one you pointed out, there are major problems.

You, my friend, are completely apart of the Intel mindshare, you have a perception that Intel is better in this regard despite all the evidence indicating otherwise.

 

[Ravalo]

I don't think the 9600K is a good option. It trades blows with the 3600 in games and is destroyed in everything else. This make sense give the 3600 has hyper-threading (AMD's SMT) and the 9600K does not. It's more expensive plus it's going to need a CPU cooler. In the end you are looking at $60 extra for equal gaming performance, much less multi-threaded performance, higher cost, and high power consumption.



1. Ryzen 3000 CPUs can be paired with X370, B450, X470, and X570 motherboards. In fact I have an X370 taichi sitting right here you can come pick up for $120. It's VRM is overkill for the power sipping Ryzen 3000 series and could easily handle a 9900K. X570 is purely for those who want that PCIe 4.0. Otherwise, just get any X470 or X370 motherboard at a massive discount compared to launch prices.

2. Your second paragraph makes zero sense. Many of the X470 and X370 boards are very high quality. It is in no sense cheaping out. Do you also consider a $140 Intel Z390 "cheaping out" or do you just have a double standard?

Last year I built a system for someone. He used intel CPU, old Nvidia GPU and an old Sharp TV as a monitor.

And here is a problem with AMD or specifically its graphic processing unit:
Picture was grainy which never happened with his old graphics. I I tried everything I could in AMD settings and TV itself. Nothing worked. My client saved some money with AMD CPU but was very unhappy he had to upgrade his monitor. I had some other people report small annoying things with new AMD CPUs. It is a peace of mind when you go with more expensive Intel CPU.
You wanna save money, get AMD, but they need to work hard to close the gaps in compatibility and areas where intel fixed everything just because in the past 90% of the PCs used their hardware.

Can intel cpus render an edited 15 minute 1080p video in less than 20 minutes?

My amd athlon x845 is similar to an intel pentium g4560 and it takes like 40 minutes to render

 

[Puiu]

9900K is the best for gaming if money's not an issue. However if you have a limited budget like most do, you can spend $300 less for an R5 3600 and put that $300 towards a better GPU to get higher framerates than the 9900K with the cheaper GPU.

That's not always true. If you're a competitive FPS ***** like I am and drop details for the sake of FPS a 9900k becomes more valuable than a higher end GPU. Dropping settings makes the CPU the bottleneck and that's where that 9900k at 5 GHz will pull away and stomp anything Ryzen.

There are zero competitive games that won't get crazy high FPS on a 3600 when you drop the settings. Do you need more than 500 FPS in CS:GO? The whole idea that you need the 9900k for competitive gaming is just BS. 99.99999% of competitive gamers (beyond esports organisations which receive them from sponsors) don't even have a high end GPU to take advantage of the few extra FPS.
Spending $3-4k on a gaming PC is unrealistic at best and those that do it want it for the best graphics they can find at a high resolution, not for CS or Dota at 1080p.