Rumor: MSI using Intel benchmarks for Ryzen marketing

[wowsers]

The user ArcticFire on SweClockers noticed MSI had copied benchmark results depending on RAM speeds from their Z270 Gaming Motherboard.

 

This initially began with user napahlm initially asking about how RAM speeds would effect performance, then the thread owner Enigma linked an image from MSI (Witcher 3 benchmark using Ryzen) as a response. Later the user ArcticFire noticed the first image looked used exactly the same performance benchmark graph as the Z270 Gaming motherboard (this also used the Witcher 3).

 

Z270 RAM benchmark image:

Spoiler

 

And then from X370 RAM benchmark image (screencapped from MSI's website):

Spoiler

(Notice how the Ryzen benchmark is just the same as the Z270, but offset one column, an added 2133 MHz column and with the 3600 and 4000 MHz columns removed)

 

Link to review of Z270 motherboard with the benchmark image: http://www.game-debate.com/news/22046/msi-z270-gaming-m5-motherboard-review
Link to product page of AM4 motherboard by MSI (click "learn more about memory" a bit down the page) https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/X370-XPOWER-GAMING-TITANIUM.html#productFeature-section

[laminutederire]

The figures aren't the same though. It's just marketing, so they may have copy paste the diagram without adjusting the scale because they don't care, because the ones who are serious about it will read the figures.

[wowsers]

10 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

The figures aren't the same though. It's just marketing, so they may have copy paste the diagram without adjusting the scale because they don't care, because the ones who are serious about it will read the figures.

If you look at the graphs you will see that they copied over the results and shifted them up one row

Z270:
FPS:          94.1  |  96       101.6    107.4    112.5    114.1
MHz:          2400  |  2666     3000     3200     3600     4000
               ^        ^        ^        ^
               |        |        |        |
Ryzen:         v        v        v        v
FPS: 92.5  |  94.1     96       101.6    107.4
MHz: 2133  |  2400     2666     3000     3200

 

[Okjoek]

It looks like the same graph, but different data.

 

EDIT: Oh wait yeah I do see it. There's some identical figures, but with a few new data points.

[ashypanda]

it's possible for them to be extremely similar, as they are both DDR4, and both dual channel, and MSI's marketing dept. probably felt that they were too similar to bother making new graphs.

[VerticalDiscussions]

Lol, i was about to say "Ryzen derail incoming".

[wowsers]

5 minutes ago, ashypanda said:

it's possible for them to be extremely similar, as they are both DDR4, and both dual channel, and MSI's marketing dept. probably felt that they were too similar to bother making new graphs.

The problem is that they have other results that are similar (but not exactly the same) on their other boards that have the same type of graph, I'd be very surprised if two motherboards with very different CPU's can get the same results within 1-2 FPS

[ashypanda]

but it's possible, or it's just that MSI's marketing dept. is really lazy, but we all still need to wait for ryzen to be in the hands of independent reviewers, to see how it performs against intel's offerings.

[wowsers]

2 minutes ago, ashypanda said:

but it's possible, or it's just that MSI's marketing dept. is really lazy, but we all still need to wait for ryzen to be in the hands of independent reviewers, to see how it performs against intel's offerings.

Well marketing dept. being lazy is the most reasonable  it's just wierd is the thing

[MageTank]

1 hour ago, ashypanda said:

it's possible for them to be extremely similar, as they are both DDR4, and both dual channel, and MSI's marketing dept. probably felt that they were too similar to bother making new graphs.

It's highly unlikely to get the exact FPS amounts. First of all, two entirely different IMC's. Secondly, Skylake/Kaby Lake has a clear IPC and clock speed advantage, so getting the exact same FPS to the exact decimal point just seems impossible. Even if you copied the exact same Intel setup, and ran the test again, you would likely see some variation. 

 

I also disagree with the data itself. If you expect me to believe the 200mhz gained from 3200 over 3000, yielded just as much of an FPS boost as the 334mhz gained over 2666, i'd call you silly. The only explanation would be that they used entirely different kits at these individual speeds, which would skew the results entirely. A tight 3000 kit would beat a loose 3200 kit. The same can be said for even lower speeds. My 3600 manual overclock smashes any DDR4 4000mhz XMP kit you can buy on the market in raw bandwidth and latency. The entire graphic seems sketchy to me, not just the fact that they blatantly copied and pasted it again. 

[Megahurt]

Same results with same memory clockspeed, that would mean a massive memory bottleneck if true.