Intel 9th Gen Paid Benchmarks Take Advantage of NDA Periods

[lacion]

Just now, pas008 said:

simple

does intel own this? so how in the world can they get in trouble with eu if they dont own this article they only sponsored it

I'm not talking about the article dude. I'm talking about what they show in the presentation to the media.

 

my question is more related to the things they do show in the US vs what they could manage to do in the EU.

 

you are just jumping at more yellowish things ever.

[pas008]

Just now, lacion said:

I'm not talking about the article dude. I'm talking about what they show in the presentation to the media.

 

my question is more related to the things they do show in the US vs what they could manage to do in the EU.

 

you are just jumping at more yellowish things ever.

intel didnt show anything another sponsored company did

 

plain and simple

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, pas008 said:

intel didnt show anything another sponsored company did

 

plain and simple

Because Intel paid for the report and then published it the EU would define that as marketing so the regulations would apply to it.

[pas008]

28 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Because Intel paid for the report and then published it the EU would define that as marketing so the regulations would apply to it.

commissioning a study you are liable for the accuracy of the results if they favor you  and fixed and still favor you in the eu?

[alicskysareblue]

Yeah because of this and their to do ridiculous price increase I'm going ryzen sure Intel maybe better  it ryzen is cheaper  and amd  hasn't pulled this bs

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, pas008 said:

commissioning a study you are liable for the accuracy of the results if they favor you  and fixed and still favor you in the eu?

Both would be, Intel wouldn't if they decide not to publish it or use it for other marketing purposes like handing out the report to journalists, but only within the EU. This wouldn't actually be a problem here though, the results were not incorrect or falsified and can be repeated by anyone since the process was well documented.

 

Only thing they could get in trouble for would be if Intel instructed PT to run the tests on Ryzen knowing that it would create an inaccurate representation of the competitor product, but PT has already admitted that was their decision not Intel's and the EU can't punish for mistakes.

[Curufinwe_wins]

30 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Both would be, Intel wouldn't if they decide not to publish it or use it for other marketing purposes like handing out the report to journalists, but only within the EU. This wouldn't actually be a problem here though, the results were not incorrect or falsified and can be repeated by anyone since the process was well documented.

 

Only thing they could get in trouble for would be if Intel instructed PT to run the tests on Ryzen knowing that it would create an inaccurate representation of the competitor product, but PT has already admitted that was their decision not Intel's and the EU can't punish for mistakes.

Even then... since the setting exist and the results are valid for those settings... they probably couldn't be held liable. Its ludicrously frustratingly difficult to actually hold companies liable for false advertising. Like a local diamond company is making falsifiable, and demonstratedly false statements, but because some resources exist that allow for the smallest doubt (in the most contrived of cases) that it might be possible they are allowed to say such crap.

[Carclis]

14 hours ago, pas008 said:

commissioning a study you are liable for the accuracy of the results if they favor you  and fixed and still favor you in the eu?

Technically you could make the argument that a result does not have to favor you in order to benefit you. I'm not familiar with the EU laws but (for example's sake) if a product were 1/3 of the cost but 90% of the performance in the company's claims then that could gain them a huge advantage compared the real numbers being somewhere around 50%.

[asus killer]

What's with this EU thing? People in EU don't even sue like crazy as in the US, i think it would be most likely someone sued Intel in the US over this looking for a quick buck.

 

The EU going after this seems really far-fetched, i don't think anyone can go after Intel, they paid for the benchmark (i don't think this can be considered a study even), they did it, they disclaimed the methodology. It sucked but they have the right to be bad at this, you had to prove intent, that is never going to happen.

[mr moose]

13 hours ago, elderago said:

Yeah because of this and their to do ridiculous price increase I'm going ryzen sure Intel maybe better  it ryzen is cheaper  and amd  hasn't pulled this bs

I'd by a ryzen because it's cheaper and for the most part performs well enough not to be disappointment,  but to make a purchasing decision on a belief that they don't do this or anything similar is crazy.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

On 10/17/2018 at 1:03 PM, lacion said:

AFAIK you can't do any type of false advertising, like including false facts.

 

one of the reasons why you never see any kind of numbers or single studies attach to marketing.

That would not be a problem in this case, since there are no false facts in PT's article nor Intel's press releases based on it.

False facts, and therefore false advertisement, would be to run a test, obtain a 20% advantage, and publish a 40% advantage. This is not what PT did: everything they did, they did transparently, and reported accurately. That's how we know of all the flaws. If you follow the steps described in their document, you will get the same results as they did, both in the original document and in the amended one.

The benchmarks they run were uninteresting, even pointless, given their decisions on a number of fronts, but they were not false by any meaning. It would be no different from an ad stating "from as little as $499! Up to 128GB RAM!", and then you check the lineup an it's $3,000 for the 128GB version, and 4GB of RAM for the $499 model. Or Nvidia's "twice the performance of a 1080!", with an asterisk pointing out it's only in raytracing+DLSS when both ares supported.

[alicskysareblue]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

I'd by a ryzen because it's cheaper and for the most part performs well enough not to be disappointment,  but to make a purchasing decision on a belief that they don't do this or anything similar is crazy.

your  making an assumption.

 

no I'm saying in this particuler case, I never said amd has never made shady business deal, I'm saying this particuler action turned ME off. 

the bigger reason is the price my i5 4670k was 220 when I bought it intel has been steadily increasing the price to the point were I could spend the same and get a 2700x

[Canada EH]

On 10/9/2018 at 3:13 AM, Carclis said:

no benchmarks available with all of the tech journalists being held back

Yes, its common practice to make a product that a company has spent millions or billions of dollars on to make it look better then it really is. That is why its common sense to wait it out, get independent benchmarks from a large number of sources and evaluate from there.

 

Its never wise to buy a first year vehicle, thats the stupidest thing a vehicle buyer can do.

[mr moose]

51 minutes ago, elderago said:

your  making an assumption.

No I didn't

51 minutes ago, elderago said:

 

no I'm saying in this particuler case, I never said amd has never made shady business deal, I'm saying this particuler action turned ME off. 

You specifically said "AMD hasn't pulled this BS"  Which is not the same as being turned off by Intel, it is a direct claim about the integrity of AMD.

51 minutes ago, elderago said:

the bigger reason is the price my i5 4670k was 220 when I bought it intel has been steadily increasing the price to the point were I could spend the same and get a 2700x

That's nice, as I said, that is a reason to buy AMD, end use is another,  hell even liking the colour of the cooler is a good  enough reason if that's what you like.

 

But when you make an absolute statement about their integrity and claim that is why you are buying it, that is not a good enough reason. If you are wondering why I have taken the time to point this out, it is because lots of little statements like this are what perpetuates the narrative that certain companies are better than the are or worse than they are when the reality is they are all the same.

[alicskysareblue]

31 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No I didn't

You specifically said "AMD hasn't pulled this BS"  Which is not the same as being turned off by Intel, it is a direct claim about the integrity of AMD.

That's nice, as I said, that is a reason to buy AMD, end use is another,  hell even liking the colour of the cooler is a good  enough reason if that's what you like.

 

But when you make an absolute statement about their integrity and claim that is why you are buying it, that is not a good enough reason. If you are wondering why I have taken the time to point this out, it is because lots of little statements like this are what perpetuates the narrative that certain companies are better than the are or worse than they are when the reality is they are all the same.

Hey man believe whatever the fuck you want I'm not interested in continuing this conversation 

 

Have a nice day

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, elderago said:

Hey man believe whatever the fuck you want I'm not interested in continuing this conversation 

 

Have a nice day

If you are not interested in discussing opinions on the internet maybe consider not posting them?

[Carclis]

15 hours ago, Canada EH said:

Yes, its common practice to make a product that a company has spent millions or billions of dollars on to make it look better then it really is. That is why its common sense to wait it out, get independent benchmarks from a large number of sources and evaluate from there.

 

Its never wise to buy a first year vehicle, thats the stupidest thing a vehicle buyer can do.

I think you're a week behind on this one. The problem was not that the products were made to look better than they were. It was that the competition was actively handicapped during a period where benchmarks were not allowed to be published. Also note that paid third party testing for gaming in this manner is pretty unheard of. I mean isn't that the whole point of Anandtech/TechSpot etc? The point I'm trying to make is if you're going to show off your product, do it in a way that is realistic ie cherry picked results, not by essentially lying about performance. Because whilst they might not be representative of performance on the whole, they are actually real figures.

[mrthuvi]

On 10/13/2018 at 4:12 PM, Stefan Payne said:

No, we do not know the scaling as it is never perfect and the 30% is only the theoretical increase due to increased core counts. You (almost) never see that in real life.

We do not  know if the internal connection for the cores is as efficient as it is with the previos ones.

We do not know how much the memory bandwith is limiting.

We do not know if there are other things that might (or might not) limit the performance.

 

Its just too soon to take even educated guesses as the architecture is not known, do they have a crossbar for the cores? Do they have a Ringbus? Or do they do the same thing that AMD did with Ryzen and make a cluster of 4 cores? 

 

And the most important thing:
How much did the power consumption change? How much can we expect with commercial available, useful software??

 

Because Amdahl's Law is a bitch and its better to wait and see for yourself when the product is finished and not speculate, even if the architecture seems to be the same. Because the performance of the Uncore is equally as important as the cores itself...

While it is highly likely that they still might be using the Ringbus but that also might increase the latency of that between the furthest cores, so loose performance.

 

And that is what you've also seen in the PT Documents, that the 8700K can be faster in some high framerate situations because of this higher latency.

So obligatory "I told you so", it came as no surprise that 9900k is roughly 30% faster that 8700k in multithreaded workload because everything under the hood is exactly the same as 8700k, just with moar cores.

[Canada EH]

5 hours ago, Carclis said:

whole point

Sure multi-billion dollar companies can have their follies, but in the end one could only assume they do things for one reason or another trying to hide some aspect of their product while shining a bright light on the good aspects.