IN A NUTSHELL:
- Intel challenges AMD by suggesting that the new Ryzen should beat older Ryzens first;
- The company, led by Dr Lisa Su, boasted during the Computex fair that the units from Ryzen 3000 series beat the competitive processor models in the Cinebench benchmark.
AMD recently introduced the long-awaited Ryzen 3000 line of processors. The units will debut in July this year and promise to be an appetizing treat for many players interested in upgrading their PC, although their actual capabilities will be known only after the first independent tests. According to PCGamesN, Intel questioning synthetic benchmarks and challenges AMD, suggesting that their processors should "beat Intel in real games".
“So you’re going to hear a lot about gaming CPUs this week. They may or may not come from certain three letter acronyms. That said, here’s what I want to challenge you. I want to challenge you to challenge them. If they want this crown come beat us in in real world gaming, real world gaming should be the defining criteria that we use to assess the world’s best gaming CPU. I challenge you to challenge anyone that wants to compete for this crown to come meet us in real world gaming. That’s the measure that we’re going to stand by.”, said Jon Carvill, Intel's vice president of marketing.
Indeed, the results achieved in applications such as Cinebench R15/R20, while often electrifying enthusiasts, have no direct impact on performance in games where AMD CPUs have been performing worse than competing products for many years (although in some cases the situation changes to the benefit of AMD with all their CPUs offering overclocking capabilities).
Of course, somebody could note at this point that Intel's sudden reluctance towards benchmarks occurred just when competition processors started to perform noticeably better than their own. During the Computex AMD boasted that Ryzen 7 3700X performs in similar tests better than Core i7 9700K. In turn the stronger Ryzen 9 3900X completely destroyed the powerful i9 9920X. AMD is also at the forefront in terms of core number and lithography (AMD creates its processors in 7nm, while Intel is now moving to 10nm), and the difference in timing - which until now has been Intel's advantage - is beginning to shrink dangerously.
Given the circumstances mentioned above, the challenge posed by Jon Carvill may be a manifestation of (at least) one of two things: a strong belief in one's own products, or the proverbial desperate measures for desperate times. What is the real deal? We will see in the first half of July.
- Intel - official website
- AMD - official website