Why did Intel do this?

[lmeneses]

 Why did Intel think it was a good idea to lie about benchmarks? Did they not think the pc community would figure it out lol. I've never favored Intel or AMD over the other, but this makes me frown upon Intel. 

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

The same reason why regular people like you and I make lies when there is something to gain. 

[Verrierr]

Intel's not the only one who did it, certainly won't be the last. Get over it. And belive it or not, I would bet good money there are people out there who will buy those CPUs thanks to those "benchmarks". there will also be those who will quote them to prove a point as well.

[lmeneses]

@BlueChinchillaEatingDorito @Verrierr They did not have to do it to the severity they did. Like yea, every retailer tweaks the numbers a bit, but the amount intel did was insanely stupid.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

17 minutes ago, lmeneses said:

@BlueChinchillaEatingDorito @Verrierr They did not have to do it to the severity they did. Like yea, every retailer tweaks the numbers a bit, but the amount intel did was insanely stupid.

If it brings sales (which it clearly does), why not? So what if they get caught? Who is everyone going to turn to? AMD? Ha. Not bloody likely. They've also done some scummy things over there at the red team. 

[lmeneses]

17 minutes ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

If it brings sales (which it clearly does), why not? So what if they get caught? Who is everyone going to turn to? AMD? Ha. Not bloody likely. They've also done some scummy things over there at the red team. 

Well, only people who are inexperienced with computers would still buy it, and why not AMD? According to the true benchmarks, the 2700x was only usually 15% behind in performance then the i9 for what, 66% more? Its a fucking rip off. 

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

1 minute ago, lmeneses said:

Well, only people who are inexperienced with computers would still buy it, and why not AMD? According to the true benchmarks, the 2700x was only usually 15% behind in performance then the i9 for what, 66% more? Its a fucking rip off. 

What constitutes as "true benchmarks" at this point? Every year another story blows up about a company altering or implementing methods to cheat benchmarks and tests in their favour. Samsung does it, LG does it, the VW emission scandal is the most infamous case of benchmark cheating.

 

Benchmarks are never 100% indicative of what your actual experience is going to be. In fact, it is very likely your mileage will differ greatly. There are so many factors that play into these benchmark scores. Much like dynos for vehicles, different days and different dynos could produce drastically different results. 

 

Benchmarks thus should always be taken with a grain of salt. But because people buy into these "results", companies will deceive their customers with phony scores because it works in their favour. If you're going on to compare the 2700x with the i9 using what you call "true benchmarks", then you've demonstrated that you're exactly the type of person Intel was targeting with these altered scores. Had this story not blown up the way it did, you would've believed that the i9 was that good. 

[lmeneses]

3 minutes ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

What constitutes as "true benchmarks" at this point? Every year another story blows up about a company altering or implementing methods to cheat benchmarks and tests in their favour. Samsung does it, LG does it, the VW emission scandal is the most infamous case of benchmark cheating.

 

Benchmarks are never 100% indicative of what your actual experience is going to be. In fact, it is very likely your mileage will differ greatly. There are so many factors that play into these benchmark scores. Much like dynos for vehicles, different days and different dynos could produce drastically different results. 

 

Benchmarks thus should always be taken with a grain of salt. But because people buy into these "results", companies will deceive their customers with phony scores because it works in their favour. If you're going on to compare the 2700x with the i9 using what you call "true benchmarks", then you've demonstrated that you're exactly the type of person Intel was targeting with these altered scores. Had this story not blown up the way it did, you would've believed that the i9 was that good. 

Except I wouldn't have because I would research other sources, and definitely not relied on the tests given by the seller lmao. 

[Carclis]

4 hours ago, lmeneses said:

Why did Intel think it was a good idea to lie about benchmarks? Did they not think the pc community would figure it out lol. I've never favored Intel or AMD over the other, but this makes me frown upon Intel.

Because the tech press or certain outlets are unable or unwilling to light a fire under their asses when they pull dodgy stuff like this.

 

[Reznik]

I bet Intel is extremely happy with the outcome of the benchmark fiasco.  Just look how many people are talking about it.   The publicity, although a bit negative is great for them and it has people talking. 

[JoostinOnline]

5 hours ago, lmeneses said:

 Why did Intel think it was a good idea to lie about benchmarks? Did they not think the pc community would figure it out lol. I've never favored Intel or AMD over the other, but this makes me frown upon Intel. 

You must be new to the tech community. Intel, AMD, and NVIDIA do this kind of thing with almost every release.

 

Edit: See my comment here https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/980997-intel-9th-gen-paid-benchmarks-take-advantage-of-nda-periods/?do=findComment&comment=11836994

[Carclis]

7 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

You must be new to the tech community. Intel, AMD, and NVIDIA do this kind of thing with almost every release.

 

Edit: See my comment here https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/980997-intel-9th-gen-paid-benchmarks-take-advantage-of-nda-periods/?do=findComment&comment=11836994

I agree but I think that example pales in comparison to disabling cores. That's next level deception.

[lmeneses]

7 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

You must be new to the tech community. Intel, AMD, and NVIDIA do this kind of thing with almost every release.

 

Edit: See my comment here https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/980997-intel-9th-gen-paid-benchmarks-take-advantage-of-nda-periods/?do=findComment&comment=11836994

I am knew I'll give you that lol, but the extreme that they went to it, like @Carclis said, is just uncalled for. 

[JoostinOnline]

6 hours ago, Carclis said:

I agree but I think that example pales in comparison to disabling cores. That's next level deception.

The "Game Mode" thing seems like they didn't know what they were doing. Intent matters.

5 hours ago, lmeneses said:

I am knew I'll give you that lol, but the extreme that they went to it, like @Carclis said, is just uncalled for. 

This seems more like incompetence than malice. But if you were around when the forum was flooded with people panicking because their new Ryzen system wouldn't boot with the RAM they bought, you probably wouldn't feel that way. The deception cost people a lot of money.

 

Really, just ignore the reviews and you won't be affected. Independent reviews are what matter.

[lmeneses]

1 hour ago, JoostinOnline said:

This seems more like incompetence than malice. But if you were around when the forum was flooded with people panicking because their new Ryzen system wouldn't boot with the RAM they bought, you probably wouldn't feel that way. The deception cost people a lot of money.

  

Really, just ignore the reviews and you won't be affected. Independent reviews are what matter.

Yea, I just always had high thoughts of Intel and was surprised by this 

[Carclis]

7 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

The "Game Mode" thing seems like they didn't know what they were doing. Intent matters.

PT didn't know what they were doing, which is understandable since they're not a company that does gaming tests. Intel on the other hand issued a public statement that said that their own lab results matched with the commissioned testing. That is a fraudulent claim whether they outright lied about the testing matching their results or if their in-house testing was conducted using those extremely deceptive settings. Both of those are malice.

[JoostinOnline]

8 hours ago, lmeneses said:

Yea, I just always had high thoughts of Intel and was surprised by this 

 

2 hours ago, Carclis said:

PT didn't know what they were doing, which is understandable since they're not a company that does gaming tests. Intel on the other hand issued a public statement that said that their own lab results matched with the commissioned testing. That is a fraudulent claim whether they outright lied about the testing matching their results or if their in-house testing was conducted using those extremely deceptive settings. Both of those are malice.

Deceptive is standard though. There's a reason that nobody with any sense has ever paid attention to first and second party reviews. If you expected them to be accurate then you're gullible.

 

I totally agree that it's bad, but there's nothing "extra bad" about it. Honestly I think Linus made a good point about how it's just trendy to hate Intel right now. The headline could be "Intel continues to behave like every other corporation".

 

[Carclis]

3 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

 

Deceptive is standard though. There's a reason that nobody with any sense has ever paid attention to first and second party reviews. If you expected them to be accurate then you're gullible.

 

I totally agree that it's bad, but there's nothing "extra bad" about it. Honestly I think Linus made a good point about how it's just trendy to hate Intel right now. The headline could be "Intel continues to behave like every other corporation".

 

If you would kindly point me in the direction of numerous other recent launches where paid third party sources have been made public prior to the embargo lifting, meanwhile having absurd results like these then I will agree with you.

[JoostinOnline]

1 minute ago, Carclis said:

If you would kindly point me in the direction of numerous other recent launches where paid third party sources have been made public prior to the embargo lifting, meanwhile having absurd results like these then I will agree with you.

It's not a third party if they're being paid by Intel.

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

just think the reason why they have to release any benchmark results when everyone already knows it would be fastest with a minimal amount over 8700k, same way as every past intel gens. 

only 1 conclusion left, you'd get it

 

[Carclis]

19 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

It's not a third party if they're being paid by Intel.

Then why would they bother with a third party? Do you not think they did it to try to give some legitimacy to the results? What I want to know is how all of these things went so wrong at the same time and somehow it's nothing out of the ordinary. Sure, an embargo is normal, getting a third party to validate your product is normal, releasing cherry picked results is normal. But when the paid results are released during the embargo period and the validation paper is for gaming (that's a new one) as well as disabling half the competitors product you have to seriously wonder what the hell is reasonable or normal. This crap makes Nvidia's 1080ti 4k vs 2080 4k DLSS comparison look fair.

[JoostinOnline]

12 minutes ago, Carclis said:

Then why would they bother with a third party? Do you not think they did it to try to give some legitimacy to the results? What I want to know is how all of these things went so wrong at the same time and somehow it's nothing out of the ordinary. Sure, an embargo is normal, getting a third party to validate your product is normal, releasing cherry picked results is normal. But when the paid results are released during the embargo period and the validation paper is for gaming (that's a new one) as well as disabling half the competitors product you have to seriously wonder what the hell is reasonable or normal. This crap makes Nvidia's 1080ti 4k vs 2080 4k DLSS comparison look fair.

That's why you...IGNORE IT.

[Carclis]

28 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

That's why you...IGNORE IT.

Which is all well and good to say except the tech publications who didn't ignore it gave it coverage and failed to properly disclose the flawed methodology of the benchmarks as well as failing to realise how out there the numbers were compared to the independent results already out there for the 2700x. Even LTT covered it on the WAN Show as well as clickbaiting it, yet failed to properly research and acknowledge what the problems were. Just a few timestamps here:

• 45:02 Claims that handicap is not an appropriate word to describe the approach to the Ryzen system configuration.

• 45:36 Claims the cooler doesn’t matter for performance testing.

• 45:41 Skips over the part about game mode without acknowledging how seriously this could impact performance.

• 47:32 Misunderstands why people are upset. Chalks it up to the differences between the AMD and Intel products being misrepresentative ie cherry picked when it’s actually related to them disabling half the product.

• 47:45 Claims people are making a mountain out of a mole hill and that we don’t know what the intent was.

• 50:22 Compared to Hawaii launch (feel free to inform me on why this one was bad), Ryzen launch where more RAM was used in the Intel system (not great, but definitely not akin to disabling half a CPU) or benchmarks showing cherry picked results (standard behaviour).

• 52:26 Suggests that it could be a mistake despite Intel statements declaring the results as legitimate and reflective of what they saw in their own lab.

• 53:48 Blames it on poor choice of third party tester, yet the company came up with the same results as them.

That's almost 12 minutes of sidestepping the problem and claiming that Intel did nothing particularly bad. I don't understand the rationale there.

[DezGalbie]

On 10/14/2018 at 1:49 AM, lmeneses said:

 Why did Intel think it was a good idea to lie about benchmarks? Did they not think the pc community would figure it out lol. I've never favored Intel or AMD over the other, but this makes me frown upon Intel. 

Of course they knew the PC community would figure it out. They were relying on just that eventuality.

Think about it. The 9900K is the best mainstream gaming CPU in the world but it is being sold at a premium price. A price too high to be deemed the value option. So how do you market such a product? You manipulate the market to force the narrative to discuss performance instead of price.

Everyone knows that the 9900K will be about 20-25% better gaming performance than the 2700X so Intel releases some clearly disingenuous figures claiming to show a 50% better performance. Cue weeks (and perhaps months) of every tech reviewer and enthusiast with a platform clambering over each other to prove that the 9900K has 25% better performance than the 2700X. Price becomes an almost overlooked factor amidst all this discussion.

Ask 100 tech-knowledgeable people the performance difference between these two CPUs in gaming, and also the price difference. Many more people will now be able to tell you the former rather than the latter. Intel have successfully put performance (the area in which they have the advantage) front and centre, at the cost of considerations of price and value.

Nobody at Intel ever thought that the PC community would buy the "50% better" spiel, but by pushing it they have gained a monumental amount of coverage of the fact that it is 20-25% better, and they have partially hidden that scary price tag with a load of smoke and mirrors.

[lmeneses]

3 hours ago, DezGalbie said:

 

Makes sense but I'm still disappointed in Intel. Its not that I believed it, but I just don't like the deception