Intel Releases “Real World” Benchmarks Alleging 9th Gen Core CPUs Beat Ryzen


The FPS Review
Staff member
May 6, 2019
When it comes to defending the performance of its Core processors, Intel's favorite crutch these days is its so-called "real world" performance tests, which are supposed to demonstrate how CPUs truly perform in common computing. The company has finally backed up its words with a number of slides that reveal the results of these oft-mentioned benchmarks.

Intel's testing suggests that its 9th gen Core CPUs are superior to AMD's Ryzen 9 3900X chip in Windows desktop application performance (Sysmark 2018: i9-9900K 7% faster, i7-9700K 3% faster), AAA PC gaming (i9-9900K 6% faster, i7-9700K 2% faster), single-core compute (i9-9900K 9% faster, i7-9700K 6% faster), and web performance (i9-9900K 3% faster, i7-9700K on par with 3900X). The only test in which AMD leads is the Cinebench benchmark.

For gaming tests specifically, AMD was shown to lead only in Assassins Creed: Odyssey and Ashes of the Singularity while the Core i7-9700K fared better than its rival across multiple titles and was on-par in the rest (+/- 3%). Intel also used a real-world fluid simulation benchmark to showcase their IMC (Memory controller) performance. In this test, the Core i7-9700K finished the simulation in 15 minutes while the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X took 17 minutes to complete.
Man... They must be getting worried about lack of future chips if they're still talking about their older chips and trying to pass off some of these things as real world, lol. Wonder if it's the 3950x coming out soon that has them worrying.
I remember seeing the Intel CPU's getting their ***** handed to them in the After Effects and Gooseberry (Blender) tests which are very much real world tests.
LOL yea I believe intel published bench marks as much as I believe McDonalds is getting into the health food business.
Yea I'm looking at Ryzen for my next CPU refresh.

But I will say this. My boss went with a 12 core threadripper and games are less stable on his system than they are with mine. It's kind of a known thing with AMD CPU's to be just different enough.

Just wanted to call that out. It's a cost I'm willing to absorb mind you.

But for an enterprise perspective if they are making games instable. What are they going to do to enterprise applications like Database and ummm... ESXi hosts and such?
Just based on the price tags alone...

3.6/4.4 GHz

3.9/4.5 GHz

3.8/4.6 GHz

3.5/4.7 GHz

3.6/4.9 GHz

3.6/5.0 GHz

Yes, the pricing is VERY competitive between the brands (finally!).
Yes, both brands remain attractive for buyers, especially for fans of a chosen brand.
Yes, any of these will definitely get the job done, whether it be for home, work, and/or gaming.
Become a Patron!