Intel Won't Stop Talking About AMD: New Tiger Lake CPU Specs & 11th Gen "Benchmarks"

benchmark numbers though are not sufficient you'll see in this case the performance on benchmarks even better than that versus competition latest gen competitive products compared to competition over competition versus renoir comp all the competitions the competition competition nearest competitor all the competition the amd 4800u is on the left the intel 11th gen platform is on the right over the ryzen 4 800u ryzen 4 800u system versus amd's 4800u amd 4800 use system the amd 4800u is on the left and the intel 11th gen core system is on the right but of course we need to be aware of our competition amd 4800u renoir is amd's current fastest integrated graphics in the u series today intel announced its new r7 4800u cpu which it compared against 11th gen part from the competition during its presentation intel's 4800u what's up amd makes the 4800u andy and do you make the 4800 eu yeah why is intel talking about it so much so apparently amd makes the 4800u but that didn't stop intel from talking about it a whole lot today in its presentation intel got everybody on the edge of their seat when it sent out a promissory note of quote something big is coming and that was for september 2nd so everyone waited for a few months and with dozens of news articles writing about intel's plans for something big happening in september we now know what it was following nvidia's bombastic announcements that dominated the media yesterday intel now has something to say and that is that it has a new logo and a new jingle but there's also one other thing i had to say unlike our imitators using benchmarks like cinebench which has a really niche usefulness in real life we set for ourselves a higher bar to ensure we are really the best across industry benchmarks there we go that that sounds like intel before that this video is brought to you by thermal grizzlies conduct and not liquid metal conductor knot is what we've used in all of our liquid metal and d-lith thermal tests capable of dropping cb thermals significantly when replacing the stock thermal interface lower cpu thermals don't just allow better overclocks but also lower noise levels because the transfer efficiency is increased the mix of gallium and indium makes for a thermal conductivity of 73 watts per meter kelvin outclassing traditional pastes significantly learn more at the link in the description below so the most frustrating thing about intel's event today was that it has what looks to be an actually promising product which is its new laptop silicon it's cpu and gpu silicon for mobile devices it might actually make an impact where amd has only recently established a new foothold in the laptop market this is especially important for both companies because the laptop marketplace is a wider mainstream market that has much greater potential for product sales than just diy enthusiasts for example and it's something that amd has really struggled to get into until recently now that andy has gotten into laptop distribution it is also entering into the oem's lists of a brand with some credibility someone they can trust to work with for their products and not make the ultimate seller of hp dell whoever looked bad for selling the product so andy's really established a strong foothold here and intel coming out with an actually competitive cpu if only we knew the name of it intel as far as we could count only actually fully named one of its new cpus once we even made a chart this is our attempt at a real world benchmark just like intel wanted in our real world benchmark spanning one hour and 14 minutes of its video footage intel said amd 12 times by our account it said 4 800 you eight times and it's had competition and conjugations or derivatives thereof 27 times which is a 2 600 increase over the amount of references to a full intel 11th gen cpu name we still don't know most of the names because intel conceded its own names are terrible and resigned to calling them 11th gen or tiger lake that'd be like if amd only ever called it cpu's matisse instead of constantly saying the name of the thing you actually buy for quick reference we also benchmarked nvidia's keynote as a control by our account nvidia referenced 37 3080 and 3090 18 total times pascal got nine references for the previous gen and 2080 and 2080 ti got a total of five references it had zero references to amd and the product intel or intel product so there you go there's your real world benchmarks of marketing and branding but intel has a chance here to really hurt amd in that newly claimed segment because the numbers that they're putting up do look compelling but ultimately intel is presenting its information in a way which makes the company look inept at best or sleazy maybe at worst so we keep this this dead horse is it's pretty dead at this point it's it's been dead in our set background for about a year now and still counting but the dead horse can still take more beatings and right now what intel really needs to do is stop presenting things in such a way that just is fueled with bitterness and hatred towards its competitor and instead focus on its own damn product if intel has a product which is actually compelling and it seems like tiger lake is which by the way that's the name of the product we're talking about today intel didn't mention it a whole lot but they did keep talking about amd but if they've got this thing that it can compete it's just you would never really know it because of how jealous intel seems in its presentation so intel really pushed it's we have something big seriously announcement hard it was actually genuinely difficult to find good coverage of the intel event shortly afterward there wasn't much out there most of the early coverage was from financial press and even mainstream media like the big three-letter initialism media that defines the news for non-tech topics and all of them primarily talked about intel's new logo and its new design aesthetic intel had an upbeat video with typefaces and font choices and color palettes it had a new cacophony of unpleasant brass for its iconic jingle and the company did announce more but it was hard to find and unfortunately the product announcements again were absolutely buried by the discussion about amd's own products so intel's something big was we think maybe probably the 11th gen tiger lake cpus we were expecting a little bit all that hype we're expecting a little bit more but that appears to be what they were talking about intel however seemed to have trouble remembering its own product name the amd 4800u is on the left the intel 11th gen platform is on the right so that was part of the presentation and despite stammering with the product's name pausing just long enough for those of us who have to stand on camera all the time and remember product names to recognize the difficulty until then moved on to show what actually looks to be potentially competitive performance but it did so after conceding to the name 11th gen instead of what was it was like i7 1185 g7 and just wait till later in the presentation where they show the power consumption and power limits next to that so then you get the intel i7 1185 g7 or whatever it was for that part one five wpl1 or 15 watts power limit one either way though the claims in this part were that it is quote two times as fast as the 4800 u in video rendering with quick sync this uh two times as fast uh nomenclature is something that all three of the big silicon companies use it's always a bit of an odd marketing metric because from a benchmark presentation standpoint the phrasing two times as fast doesn't really mean anything but their intent is it takes half as long but you could also use multiplication i guess if you're not going to actually do any math to make the numbers work but anyway you can't accelerate two times against an arbitrary scale in a direction which is negative is kind of what we're getting at but that's okay so we've seen similar igp performance improvements in rendering in the past quick sync is not new intel does in fact have a genuine real advantage or at least it did until premiere started working on the apu side of things for amd in rendering and in working with adobe software to accelerate the actions that can make use of an igp now in some of our prior testing from ages past we have found many scenarios in complex software like adobe premiere where the igp isn't universally leveraged to quite this extent it's sort of like how the common comments right now for rtx cards is about nvidia's own marketing claims how the 3080 is quote 100 faster in some specific applications that people have cherry-picked than the 2080. it's a scenario that you can't make happen but it doesn't mean it's universally true and the same goes for igp usage and things like adobe premiere you can absolutely make that scenario happen where it is significantly faster and it's great when it works but we've switched off of cpus with igps in them because they just weren't good enough for our workloads and it's a really variable mixed bag when it gets to video editing because there's so many things that you can do that each workload is going to behave a little bit differently intel is also claiming a time reduction of 27 in photoshop subject selection and it is again obsessing over amd in this comparison rather than showing us a comparison of intel versus past intel intel doesn't want to show how much it's improved against itself it only wants to show how it's doing versus its newest competitor in the mobile market amd which has been completely absent from it for years that's where it looks weak by intel because amd hasn't been in the mobile game for a really long time it's not like desktop diy or server where they instantly got out there in front of everyone with ryzen it took a little while longer for the laptop stuff to really start popping up in a way that meant something for andy's products so the fact that intel is now recoiling from this just six months later from amd's new presence and laptops looks like they've been hit a lot harder than perhaps they actually have been and that's all because of the perception that intel is creating with its overly defensive presentation where it can't stop talking about amd's products in its own intel product announcement presentation reflecting on our coverage approach to nvidia yesterday we noticed that it was completely hardware and specs driven we wanted to look back at how we covered nvidia because it felt like covering intel was shaping up in a more critical and different way entirely and we wanted to really figure out why it felt that way and in reflecting on that coverage we noticed one key thing nvidia didn't mention amd at least that we could find once in the entire coverage and certainly not in a way which was as deriding as intel's mentions of amd uh nvidia did not this time it's done it in the past but didn't this time take unsettled jabs had its competitor and instead focused on its own product and entirely on comparisons against its previous products there was not one amd gpu in those gaming uplift charts however useless some of them may have been because of the odd decision to scale the y-axis on pixels they still didn't show a competitor so it was entirely marketed against itself and that's where the the difference really emerges and then today we've got quotes from intel uh directly knocking amd in a much more aggressive fashion and we'll play that back again one more time unlike our imitators using benchmarks like cinebench which has a really niche usefulness in real life we set for ourselves a higher bar to ensure we are really the best across industry benchmarks so in this full quote intel is saying that it has ascended beyond benchmarks it's moved into the greater plain where apple resides where things are built on magic and unicorns and single button mice for example and it has uh moved on to realistic and real-life presentations of how a product performs it then says that it is setting a higher bar to be the best across industry bench is that right industry benchmarks it's weird i thought they were just saying benchmarks were bad anyway they're trying to be the best across industry benchmarks but also only imitators use benchmarks uh further still we would actually agree with intel that cinebench is of limited usefulness we eliminated it from our officially published benchmarking suite many years ago that's because we replaced it with things which represent a very similar type of workflow the processor is leveraged almost the exact same way except in a more widely used set of applications those applications and our benchmarks would include things like blender which is now used across the games industry including by epic games who is assisting in uh promoting blender in the very least lately it's also used in cinema and in 3d and animation workloads so blender is one of the ones we've replaced cinebench with we also added v-ray by chaos group and that one has grown in popularity over the years as well so these are widely used they are also benchmarks if you can use them in such a fashion that one could call it a benchmark benchmarking is ultimately just the process of taking devices and comparing them to one another with some form of quantifiable data some objective process that is repeatable and produces a useful number out the end of it intel is trying to stretch this phrase benchmark in a way that makes it seem like it is only for completely unrealistic synthetic scenarios but in fact benchmarks can be both synthetic and real world so while intel is busy yelling at pigeons about how many more soldiers its cpus can draw i need more soldiers amd has been working on producing cinebench numbers and although both of those are of limited usefulness for most people the one thing we can extrapolate away here is that cinebench is at least something you can compare across the platform and more importantly cinebench is not that different from how blender and v-ray behave so even if you're not a cinema 4d user which most people are not intel's 100 correct on that you may very well be a user of things that are tile-based rendering applications and those would scale pretty similarly in general further still the bigger point here before we can even get into product specs today unfortunately is intel's name calling referring to amd as imitators this is just petty and it looks weak and defensive amd did steal intel's entire chipset and cpu naming convention fortunately intel has also like it has with benchmarks ascended past the use of names that are legible by humans and towards things like 11 857 g7 or whatever it was doesn't really matter no one's gonna remember it anyway so years ago amd decided to steal intel's chipset and cpu names because it needed some way to communicate or convey to the market that this product matches that incumbent's product intel's product in this category but until amd goes back to 14 nanometers and starts adding pluses to the end of it it's not really an imitator and this is also dangerous glass house and stones territory to get into for intel where what happens the instant that intel starts playing around with multi-chip modules or glue as they called it previously does that then make intel the imitator of amd uh ultimately they're both trying to sell a product and we'd really like it if both companies would focus on selling their own damn product instead of throwing stones at the guy across the pond the biggest oddity though is that in intel's crusade for real world performance it is still showing things which are actually just quantifiable benchmarks they're literally benchmarks but intel is trying to twist the words in a way where it doesn't quite seem like that for example when showing object selection performance or premier scrubbing performance intel is leaning heavily on the phrasing real world workloads real life scenarios intel then produces numbers at the end of it after running a controlled set of we'll call them tasks that's a benchmark so it's just it's literally that is exactly what benchmarking is that's the stuff we already do and many other reviewers by the way are capable of running such tests so blanket statements about unlike some people who are using benchmarks we are beyond that intel is casting doubt on all controlled testing here but what's actually happening is that intel is refuting its own point to the nth degree about benchmarks being useless or benchmarks being inaccurate to real-world performance and then it goes on and presents benchmarks and it talks about benchmarks and it talks about how it's trying to achieve the highest bar in benchmarking and get the highest real world performance benchmark results so ultimately what's happening is intel is tearing down its own brand credibility and damaging the trust that reviewers that customers that viewers who might not even want to buy the stuff but are just interested from afar it damages the trust that all of these groups of people have in what intel is saying and that's a bad thing even just small examples like this chart from page 4 of its 100 plus page slideshow you can see amd here offers a baseline 1.0 performance while intel offers plus 28 plus 67 and 4x it's like it's like it seems intentional certainly the new logo from intel is all psychology driven so you get this weird trying to tweak the numbers to such an extent that you're actually changing the decimal places and the multipliers and the units by which you are comparing things 1.0 looks awfully small compared to plus 28 why why not 100 128 if you're gonna do that comparison why not intel versus intel why don't we do that if intel does intel new versus intel old how does it present that data that's the real question for this one 4x where does that come from why have we switched to a multiplier instead of percentages and why not why not like 4.0 5.0 whatever 1.28 whatever the case may be that's enough ranting about intel's terrible approach to a product presentation we'll talk briefly about the actual product specs unfortunately we were so busy pausing the video every 30 seconds that it it became difficult to gauge how we should approach the content so we decided to focus on the thing intel needs to actually improve which was all the stuff a second ago and uh then split the last bit for the actual announcements this is intel you could learn a lot from the way nvidia is doing presentations don't learn from amd they actually do pretty uh pretty petty presentations as well we wouldn't really recommend looking at them for guidance but uh that would make you an imitator anyway so we wouldn't want that so let's get into the real news though they have a lot of stuff to look at from block diagrams to technical information on volt frequency curves things like that that's all more architectural stuff we are interested in it but it's not going gonna be the focus today because the focus today was intel's positioning and marketing and now we're just gonna look at the product spec sheets and information so here's a block diagram of one of the processors the new cpus will scale up to four cores eight threads at 4.8 gigahertz max for single thread and will include pcie gen 4 support the gen 4 support is primarily useful for higher speed ssds but could potentially prove useful for gpu attachment that said the pcie bandwidth differences should be relatively minor when it comes down to actual graphics throughput but we'll have to test things and see how it goes the more important difference is marketing sadly and having pcie gen4 on the box will actually be meaningful for the less informed buyer the graphics solution is branded as iris xe in this block diagram and hosts 96 eu's at the fully built version power management includes updates to dvfs which is just a volt frequency scalar pretty much all the modern processors do some form of dbfs next up here's the product spec sheet intel has moved beyond tdp which is actually a good thing and it spent a while tearing down tdp as a measurement of anything useful so hopefully it removes that metric elsewhere too if it really believes this instead intel is providing a power range which we think is far better for especially its diy enthusiast products if it goes this direction in the future and it is showing the power saving cpus operating in the 7 to 15 watt range and the higher end cpus in the 12 to 28 watt range this is actually an approach that we can get behind assuming it's accurately tested obviously and is a little bit less confusing for most people than tdp where you have a short range and a long range power number that may or may not align with the tdp number although the longer term tao expiry one typically does align one to one with it the cpus are the i7 eleven eight five seven eight eight five g seven we'll leave that mistake in there because it is realistic benchmark intel's looking for real world scenarios to promote its products anyway normally we would cut a mistake like that and just resay it but that was a genuine one and at this point it's probably a realistic thing to encounter so the 1185 g7 is at the top of the stack it's four cores eight threads intel has made its naming significantly more confusing even beyond just those letters and numbers though because now its i3 cpus are listed as four core eight thread or two core four threat the i5 cpus run four core eight as do the i7s and we also like that intel has decided to list maximum all-core turbo and will give them credit for no longer shying away from that metric the highest single core at 4.8 is noteworthy and is what will contribute meaningfully to intel's ability to combat amd in this space the graphics cores also look significantly improved in a way which may finally move igps away from something like 720p games and into something actually useful it's just a shame that after all this talk all the architecture information all the technical information intel decided that it was going to build a bigger story out of its name calling than its own product the imitators statement was the one that really started to really set the tone that was at five minutes into the presentation and that was the tone that we had for the entire rest of the presentation intel when people are watching your presentations and within five minutes you call your competitor names and then go forth to contradict yourself several times forget your own product name and refer to the competitor's product so many times that i a non-laptop cpu reviewer learn the competitors names before yours that's not the way you should be presenting a product this is a bad precedent to set and this this could have all been very interesting and useful and we would have been happy to cover the architectural information as we often do however in this case with an air time that is generally limited to around 30 minutes max for us at least we decided that the more interesting story would be the one of how intel manages to keep flubbing its delivery of new products even when they actually look competitive when the product is good you don't need to do screwy things to market it just market the damn product how many times now have i had to get on camera and say this specifically about intel or amd it's always those two most recently nvidia absolutely with the rtx launch in 2018 we grilled them for that but lately though intel has been on the receiving end of this discussion the most uh amd is starting to learn it's hired some new people who believe in this approach so that's good intel has people who believe in the approach we're not sure what's happening but it's such a big company that there's a lot being lost in the corporate mess so anyway we couldn't find a single instance uh beyond the one of the full product name being called out most of the time it was truncated and even if there's one more hidden in there somewhere that we didn't find that's still like seven or eight forty eight hundred u full product name references to intel's one which is just silly so uh intel probably time to work on the names probably time to work on the marketing but the product stack is at least looking promising this is a place where intel can seriously recover from amd we would suspect that this should be something actually worth considering a purchase of tiger like that is in the laptop and portable space particularly for business use so maybe we'll review one typically we don't but who knows we might look into them that's it for this one thanks for watching subscribe for as always you can watch the roundup of the nvidia news from yesterday as well if this stuff interests you and uh you can go to store.camerasnexus.net if you'd like to pick up a wireframe mousemat modmats or other stuff from our store we'll see you all next time [Music]

Channel: Gamers Nexus

Views: 891,725

Keywords: gamersnexus, gamers nexus, computer hardware, intel tiger lake, intel i7-1185g7, intel cpus, intel i7-1185g7 specs, intel tiger lake vs amd ryzen, amd ryzen 7 4800u, amd r7 4800u, intel xe, intel iris benchmarks, intel gpu

Id: aFHBgb9SY1Y

Length: 26min 37sec (1597 seconds)

Published: Wed Sep 02 2020

Reddit Comments

[u/bubblesort33]

I feel like Intel's marketing department has really gotten bad in the last decade. They really haven't had to do much marketing, because they had no competition. Must be getting rusty.

[u/Kougar]

Intel has been gaming mobile benchmark numbers for decades simply because it's the easiest to do, the hardest to track, and it loves to launch mobile first. Laptops are never identical across platforms, cooling profiles are never identical, and now even the same CPU will have have entirely different TDP configurations.

Hardware Unboxed pointed out the TDP configuration question multiple times for this presentation, and went on to repeatedly call out the use of known "tainted" software, to use his term. The pièce de résistance was when HB noticed on a few slides Intel is literally claiming its CPU will download files 3x faster on WIFI 6 or 4x faster on Thunderbolt compared to an AMD processor. Literally, Intel is claiming its 11th gen CPU makes Wifi download files faster, as if WIFI 6 was an Intel-CPU specific feature or something. I hear it's 12th-gen chips will make your broadband internet download files faster!

[u/samcuu]

I suppose they try to steer people away from benchmarks while doing benchmarks themselves so people will trust their numbers (which, according to them, are not benchmarks) more than 3rd party benchmarks (that will be clearly titled as benchmarks).

[u/_TheEndGame]

It's funny how Nvidia has the most accurate pre-release data for their products

[u/wondersnickers]

It's like you meet a friend who can't stop talking about their Ex and keep checking social Media on what they might be up to.

[u/[deleted]]

Watching the whole video on Intel's presentation only gives me the impression that Intel is trying too hard to be better than AMD.

Mind you that Ryzen entry to laptop CPUs aren't really that long.

That being said, after watching Hardware Unboxed's videos on the presentation, I am interested in how much "real-life' performance that can be squeezed from the AI in Tiger Lake CPUs.

[u/narfcake]

And yet, not even a year ago on a different product launch, they wanted everyone to avoid any reference to AMD -- so much so they moved the press embargo to midnight, just mere hours ahead of AMD's embargo lift.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuaiqcjf0bs

(I doubt we'll get another full rant about this from Linus, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's at least brought up in tomorrow's WAN show.)

[u/rorrr]

Am I the only one who thinks it's perfectly fine to compare your product to competitors'?

(I understand that the benchmarks are cherrypicked, that's a separate issue)

[u/jaaval]

Well iirc AMD launced ryzen 4000 mobile by comparing to intel a lot. Iirc they were "faster in gaming than 9700k" etc. It's annoying in both cases. They didn't say intel though, they said "competition".