Wasn't there a time when AMD released CPUs with higher clocks than Intel's CPUs?

I don't recall anyone underclocking the AMDs to match the Intel for benchmarks. The whole point was always that Intel and AMD did things differently "under the hood" and clock speed was no longer a reliable marker.
No one talks about GPU clock speeds after all except within a current generation, when the next comes out it's understood and accepted they could be much faster or slower but still offer better performance.

Or to put it another way: What's the point? A benchmark of an engineering sample, not running at final speeds, against an outdated Intel production CPU... It's just numbers juggling.

Might as well talk about the benefits of the 2017 Toyota Tacoma by claiming it has more cup holders than a 2005 F-150--assuming that they don't change that by the time the 2017s hit the dealers, of course!

Perhaps they think it's clever, but I see it as another AMD marketing misstep. There are two sides to a business. You need to make a competitive product/service profitably, and then you need to convince customers of that fact.

Regardless of their technical merits, I think AMD has been SERIOUSLY struggling with their marketing in recent years. Intel hasn't had to do much marketing lately, but nvidia has done very well on that score and Apple could sell a 286 in a shoe box to their customers and they'd pay $1500 for it.
AMD couldn't sell a warp drive to Elon Musk for $100.

Seriously, whoever AMD's PR team/firm is they need to be fired. Actually, they need to lose their jobs and be barred from ever holding a marketing position again. With this level of incompetence they should only be qualified for gov't jobs.




The Jedi Master