4 ms·
That pricing comment is almost laughable and makes me wonder how much Intel paid for this review. Framing the pricing in the context of a $9,000 PC is a blatan
by mizzack 9y ago
That pricing comment is almost laughable and makes me wonder how much Intel paid for this review.
Framing the pricing in the context of a $9,000 PC is a blatant attempt to dilute the price discrepancy. In the context of a common ~$2,500-$3,000 rig, $700 matters a lot. I'd be curious to see how many people buy these "dream" $9,000 PCs. I'd wager it's not many.
- rovek 9y agoI don't see this as Intel biased, in the "The bang for buck stops here" the author very clearly points out that the AMD CPU is vastly more cost effective for likely scenarios. Though saying it's a Mobo and a decent SSD somewhat understates what those builders would likely spend $700 on.
- geezerjay 9y ago> I don't see this as Intel biased, The article was written to sell the idea that Intel's offering beats AMD's in all relevant features considering all aspects deemed relevant by the writer, and then he proceeds to bend himself backwards to try to come up with any excuse to ignore the 700$ price difference between Intel's i9 rig and AMD's Ryzen Threadripper and how that price difference buys only marginal performance gains. I would also add that it's also questionable how the author decides for no reason at all to setup Intel's rig with two SSDs in RAID0 while leaving AMD's rig with two separate drives. All in all, it looks like a far-fetched and somewhat desperate attempt at finding a particular offering by Intel that can show some performance gains over the AMD Ryzen Threadripper, and in the process commit so many methodological errors to get to those marginal gains that a good portion of the text is dedicated to come up with excuses to try to sell the idea that none of that matters.