Intel's marketing team at it again "SUPERIOR GAMING PERFORMANCE AT A LOWER PRICE"

[schwellmo92]

Story:

_rogame a respected hardware leaker has just shared some slides from Intel comparing gaming performance of their 10th generation 10750H mobile processors in an MSI GL65 laptop versus the AMD Zen 2 R9 4900HS mobile processors in the Zephyrus G14. The Intel processor inside the MSI GL65 has the luxury of a larger and thicker chassis, and the GPU it is paired with is an RTX 2060 Refresh 90W. The AMD processor inside the Zephyrus G14 is operating in a smaller and thinner chassis, and the GPU it is paired with is an RTX 2060 MAX-Q 65W. Intel are considering this a win for their processor and claiming that they offer superior performance for a lower cost.

 

My thoughts:

Both Intel and AMD are guilty of of maniuplating test cases to show their products in the best light, but it is rare we get comparisons as ridiculous as this. The laptop is the one of the least penetrated segments for AMD, it makes me wonder if these comparisons are intentionally malicous or the people putting them together are just stupid. Anyone with half a brain knows the gaming performance difference is due to the much higher power limit on the GPU in the MSI laptop. The cost argument is also weak considering they are comparing a budget value orienteted laptop to a premium laptop.

 

Source: 

Edit: my source https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-faces-criticism-for-comparing-gaming-laptops-with-different-gpu-models

[Letgomyleghoe]

Umm okay, thanks intel.

 

had a conversation with an i.t guy from intel today and how most of the people he’s worked with in marketing are clowns.

[themaniac]

Honestly dont see the problem here. They have better performance with a cheaper laptop. Now I don't know if theres an amd version of the msi but if there is I'd be curious to see the performance difference 

[5x5]

2 minutes ago, themaniac said:

Honestly dont see the problem here. They have better performance with a cheaper laptop. Now I don't know if theres an amd version of the msi but if there is I'd be curious to see the performance difference 

The issue is misleading marketing. The reason the GL65 would perform better is not the CPU at all - it's the 25% thicker chassis and 40% higher GPU power envelope.

[5x5]

@schwellmo92the comparison is malicious btw - there are Ryzen-based 2060 Max-P laptops (Lenovo Legion models, Asus TuF models) - Intel have carefully selected the model which is tuned for high battery life (10 hours) and efficiency and pitted it against a budget MSI model that barely lasts 4 hours on a charge and uses an aggressive power profile and much louder fans.

[Pixel5]

8 minutes ago, themaniac said:

Honestly dont see the problem here. They have better performance with a cheaper laptop. Now I don't know if theres an amd version of the msi but if there is I'd be curious to see the performance difference 

the problem is comparing a big thick 15.6" laptop with a regular 2060 to a compact 14" laptop with a 2060 max Q (downclocked basically)

And then getting the conclusion out of it that its the NEW 10TH GEN INTEL OFFERING SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE while its 100% the GPU and the bigger laptop giving the performance and not the CPU at all.

 

If their comparison was just the laptops and thats its it would all be fine, its the bottom line that its the CPU thats giving them the better performance which is a total lie.

[The Sloth]

2 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

Intel doing Intel things

Kinda sad, reminds me of old FX marketing. Hope they can bring out something that can compete, competition is better for everyone. 

[5x5]

1 minute ago, nerdslayer1 said:

Kinda sad, reminds me of old FX marketing. Hope they can bring out something that can compete, competition is better for everyone. 

I feel like this has been the conclusion to a lot of threads in the past year and a half. In that time, we've had two whole "generations" of Intel refreshes.

[Letgomyleghoe]

1 minute ago, nerdslayer1 said:

Kinda sad, reminds me of old FX marketing. Hope they can bring out something that can compete, competition is better for everyone. 

FX was great don’t insult my fake core high clock masterpiece!

[Jurrunio]

They know we know they know we know they are lying, but they are still lying

[flashiling]

i feel like the problem isn't us tech nerds they're lying to, because ofc we know they're manipulating things in their favour.

but the normal consumer that doesn't know much about pc's and then goes to buy a laptop to his/her son/daughter might see things like that and come to the conclution that intel is best.

 

[Haro]

5 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

They know we know they know we know they are lying, but they are still lying

They know we know they know we know they know we know they know we know they are full of bs

[DrMacintosh]

I’ve already moved on from x86

 

AMD and Intel should start investing in ARM chips too. 

[RejZoR]

People keep saying AMD has poor laptop penetration, but I disagree. After release of Ryzen, it's actually really stupid not to go with AMD. I still have some doubts about those 2c/4c Ryzens, but I have the 4c/8t Ryzen 2500U and it's one hell of a performer. In fact it's so good I recommended AMD path to all my relatives who were looking for laptops. They've mostly gone with Ryzen 7 2700U and one even with Ryzen 7 3700U coz it'll be used for image editing (I think it was some HP's X360).

 

In fact Intel's model lineup is so bizarre I don't even know what I'd recommend to anyone, especially just looking at model numbers which are just straight up weird. The user of that X360 required some more horsepower and every Intel that came across as an option I had to look at Intel's ARK page to even know what kind of core configuration and clocks it has. Where AMD's simple range of models make it almost entirely obvious without looking at specs.

[Jumballi]

Knew both Intel and AMD retail marketing managers, they honestly couldn't care less about having competition. Their jobs were to find the numbers for the most common denominator, your high school drop out level, and put up advertising that would essentially be "correct" but not true.

 

My team didn't know the difference between a GHz and a Core, so they ate it up and just parroted the incorrect info.

 

Intel and AMD marketing both couldn't care less about being accurate, their only goal is to win over the one sucker who didn't do his homework, while the store loses 2 customers because we essentially lied to them.

[leadeater]

Correct me if I'm wrong but did Intel just do a benchmark? I thought they didn't believe in those anymore.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but did Intel just do a benchmark? I thought they didn't believe in those anymore.

You forgot the condition, only if they can't be manipulated to favour Intel (not that AMD & Nvidia don't also do this).

 

Anyway on that Slide is a URL which is supposed to contain the full specs and testing methodology except this test doesn't seem to exist. In the intro it says if the test you're looking for isn't listed see the slide for details on how to access the information and the slide just links back to the same URL.

 

Maybe its because these were internal slides not intended for the public but I find it funny they chose not to add this test to the database.

[3rrant]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but did Intel just do a benchmark? I thought they didn't believe in those anymore.

Measuring in-game performance and logging FPS calculating an average definitely isn't a benchmark. Like, you wouldn't "benchmark" a workstation by measuring the time in a Blender render, you're just counting time passing after all.

 

 

 

 

 

Courtesy of Intel Marketing

[5x5]

17 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but did Intel just do a benchmark? I thought they didn't believe in those anymore.

They also used "AMD's Narrative" in a slide. They found a new buzzword

[AldiPrayogi]

6 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

They also used "AMD's Narrative" in a slide. They found a new buzzword

This is CNN vs Fox level madness

[Guest]

2 hours ago, 5x5 said:

The issue is misleading marketing. The reason the GL65 would perform better is not the CPU at all - it's the 25% thicker chassis and 40% higher GPU power envelope.

If you look at it another way, the cheapness of the Intel processor means they can afford a bigger screen with a better graphics card. 

[leadeater]

23 minutes ago, AldiPrayogi said:

This is CNN vs Fox level madness

Spoiler

 

CNN UK:

 

CNN US: "We can do bigger"

 

India: "lol watch this"

 

There is always one level higher.

[Jurrunio]

17 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

If you look at it another way, the cheapness of the Intel processor means they can afford a bigger screen with a better graphics card. 

It's not Intel CPUs being cheap, but not trying to thin out the laptop as much as possible that makes things cheap, allowing the other stuff to get better.

 

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

-snip-

eh Intel laptops are still good for tech dummies that can't use Macbooks for some reason or another. They wont blame me for recommending Intel from the start.

[5x5]

31 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

If you look at it another way, the cheapness of the Intel processor means they can afford a bigger screen with a better graphics card. 

Thr price delta comes from the shit screen, power quality PCB, smaller battery, worse speakers, crap mic array and cheaper SSD. Not to mention the super budget plastic chassis of the GL65 which warps like cardboard. The i7 in that laptop actually costs more than the 4900HS

[schwellmo92]

Updated OP with videocardz coverage which includes the entire slide deck https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-faces-criticism-for-comparing-gaming-laptops-with-different-gpu-models