4 ms·

It's not just low-tier media outlets (at least in terms of reach), this is largely driven by large names like LTT and Gamer's Nexus People don't realize that m

It's not just low-tier media outlets (at least in terms of reach), this is largely driven by large names like LTT and Gamer's Nexus People don't realize that mid range mobile chips from both Intel and AMD out perform top of the range desktop SKUs from a few years ago because they're constantly bombarded by hot takes based on things like CPU rendering and unzipping files... At this point I'm convinced it's just an informal cycle, where if they actually reported in a realistic manner, no release would be exciting. If they didn't pair bottom of the line CPUs with top end GPUs and odd settings configurations under the guise of "not wanting to reflect a GPU bottleneck", it'd be a lot clearer how badly needs have stagnated vs the speed of these new SKUs

gruez 4y ago
>At this point I'm convinced it's just an informal cycle, where if they actually reported in a realistic manner, no release would be exciting. If they didn't pair bottom of the line CPUs with top end GPUs and odd settings configurations under the guise of "not wanting to reflect a GPU bottleneck", it'd be a lot clearer how badly needs have stagnated vs the speed of these new SKUs Hardware unboxed did a video explaining why reviews do that: https://youtu.be/Zy3w-VZyoiM https://youtu.be/Zy3w-VZyoiM tl;dw: you're not caring about the performance today, you're caring about the performance a few years from now when you bought a faster GPU.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  Wow that's the most blatantly misleading chart I've seen out of these types of outfits in a long time! I'm sorry this is kind of long, but I really had to make sure I wasn't missing something with how obvious there were about it. The complaint people have is that they're not matching up hardware realistically... so they take a ~$350 Intel CPU and pit it against a ~$250 AMD CPU, instead of the ~$350 AMD sibling it launched alongside of to artificially induce a larger gap! How much do you want to bet the same graph with a 2700x would have given a much less convincing gap? - Now you might be thinking I'm just being uncharitable... but they actually tested the correct SKUs specifically for future proofing, twice over the last few years! Talk about a smoking gun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11GvlWamF2E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11GvlWamF2E And no surprise, it took using a $1000 GPU at 1080p to shake out half the gap shown for a similarly priced GPU in the video! And even worse, if you actually go and look at the individual titles, unlike the graphs shown here, at no point was the difference enough to affect your ability to hit a playable refresh rate! The largest differences were in games where they were both getting over 300 FPS since again, they're using a $1000 GPU for 1080p! - And if you're still not convinced it's an intentional attempt to push a misleading point, I mentioned they've done this comparison twice... the last time the entire point of the video was to not base your choice on future proofing! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZkJ_-vfQa8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZkJ_-vfQa8 They actually concluded by saying there was no meaningful difference, gaming is largely GPU limited, and specifically replied to people claiming that you can just wait for the difference to appear: I wouldn't hold your breath, I expect you'll upgrade your [CPU] platform once or twice before those extra cores for gaming matter I don't know how much more blatant you can get than that...
  - gruez 4y ago
    >Wow that's the most blatantly misleading chart I've seen out of these types of outfits in a long time! >I'm sorry this is kind of long, but I really had to make sure I wasn't missing something with how obvious there were about it. >The complaint people have is that they're not matching up hardware realistically... so they take a ~$350 Intel CPU and pit it against a ~$250 AMD CPU, instead of the ~$350 AMD sibling it launched alongside of to artificially induce a larger gap! I'm assuming the "chart" in question is the one shown at https://youtu.be/Zy3w-VZyoiM?t=278 https://youtu.be/Zy3w-VZyoiM?t=278. The point of comparing the $250 amd cpu against the $350 intel cpu isn't to claim that they're in the same market segment, it's to point out that if benchmarked CPUs using "reasonable" GPU parings, you'll see little to no difference between high end and mid end CPUs. Now, you might argue that benchmarking this way is misleading because in reality, you'll never see the performance differential and therefore would waste money by buying the high end CPU. However, the CPUs are actually faster. Benchmarking them in such a way that their actual performance doesn't show because they're limited by some external factor would also be misleading. It'd be like putting out a benchmark between a sports car and an econobox and concluding that they're within 5% (or whatever) of each other in terms of "performance" because the speed limit is 60mph, so they both get you to your destination in around the same amount of time.
    - BoorishBears 4y ago
      You're missing that the video is making a claim with two parts: a) you need to use unrealistic pairings to get the true margin of the parts under review... b) we prioritize exposing the margin to allow future-proofing your CPU choice I'm totally agreeing that they need to use mismatched GPU to make the first point. - But I'm strongly refuting the second: they expose the "hidden" margin because again, the real world gains for most owners wouldn't be there and the content would be a lot less exciting. And they're claiming that it's not about today, but it will be once future GPUs at the same price point are faster... but they concluded the exact opposite before: stating that you should not bank on GPU futureproofing changing the math on which CPU is a better choice. And what's so damning is that when they wanted to prove that opposite take about the exact same topic they used direct competitors twice. As soon as they benefited from the gap they decided to downgrade the CPU.

gruez 4y ago

>At this point I'm convinced it's just an informal cycle, where if they actually reported in a realistic manner, no release would be exciting. If they didn't pair bottom of the line CPUs with top end GPUs and odd settings configurations under the guise of "not wanting to reflect a GPU bottleneck", it'd be a lot clearer how badly needs have stagnated vs the speed of these new SKUs Hardware unboxed did a video explaining why reviews do that: https://youtu.be/Zy3w-VZyoiM https://youtu.be/Zy3w-VZyoiM tl;dw: you're not caring about the performance today, you're caring about the performance a few years from now when you bought a faster GPU.

BoorishBears 4y ago
Wow that's the most blatantly misleading chart I've seen out of these types of outfits in a long time! I'm sorry this is kind of long, but I really had to make sure I wasn't missing something with how obvious there were about it. The complaint people have is that they're not matching up hardware realistically... so they take a ~$350 Intel CPU and pit it against a ~$250 AMD CPU, instead of the ~$350 AMD sibling it launched alongside of to artificially induce a larger gap! How much do you want to bet the same graph with a 2700x would have given a much less convincing gap? - Now you might be thinking I'm just being uncharitable... but they actually tested the correct SKUs specifically for future proofing, twice over the last few years! Talk about a smoking gun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11GvlWamF2E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11GvlWamF2E And no surprise, it took using a $1000 GPU at 1080p to shake out half the gap shown for a similarly priced GPU in the video! And even worse, if you actually go and look at the individual titles, unlike the graphs shown here, at no point was the difference enough to affect your ability to hit a playable refresh rate! The largest differences were in games where they were both getting over 300 FPS since again, they're using a $1000 GPU for 1080p! - And if you're still not convinced it's an intentional attempt to push a misleading point, I mentioned they've done this comparison twice... the last time the entire point of the video was to not base your choice on future proofing! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZkJ_-vfQa8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZkJ_-vfQa8 They actually concluded by saying there was no meaningful difference, gaming is largely GPU limited, and specifically replied to people claiming that you can just wait for the difference to appear: I wouldn't hold your breath, I expect you'll upgrade your [CPU] platform once or twice before those extra cores for gaming matter I don't know how much more blatant you can get than that...
- gruez 4y ago
  >Wow that's the most blatantly misleading chart I've seen out of these types of outfits in a long time! >I'm sorry this is kind of long, but I really had to make sure I wasn't missing something with how obvious there were about it. >The complaint people have is that they're not matching up hardware realistically... so they take a ~$350 Intel CPU and pit it against a ~$250 AMD CPU, instead of the ~$350 AMD sibling it launched alongside of to artificially induce a larger gap! I'm assuming the "chart" in question is the one shown at https://youtu.be/Zy3w-VZyoiM?t=278 https://youtu.be/Zy3w-VZyoiM?t=278. The point of comparing the $250 amd cpu against the $350 intel cpu isn't to claim that they're in the same market segment, it's to point out that if benchmarked CPUs using "reasonable" GPU parings, you'll see little to no difference between high end and mid end CPUs. Now, you might argue that benchmarking this way is misleading because in reality, you'll never see the performance differential and therefore would waste money by buying the high end CPU. However, the CPUs are actually faster. Benchmarking them in such a way that their actual performance doesn't show because they're limited by some external factor would also be misleading. It'd be like putting out a benchmark between a sports car and an econobox and concluding that they're within 5% (or whatever) of each other in terms of "performance" because the speed limit is 60mph, so they both get you to your destination in around the same amount of time.
  - BoorishBears 4y ago
    You're missing that the video is making a claim with two parts: a) you need to use unrealistic pairings to get the true margin of the parts under review... b) we prioritize exposing the margin to allow future-proofing your CPU choice I'm totally agreeing that they need to use mismatched GPU to make the first point. - But I'm strongly refuting the second: they expose the "hidden" margin because again, the real world gains for most owners wouldn't be there and the content would be a lot less exciting. And they're claiming that it's not about today, but it will be once future GPUs at the same price point are faster... but they concluded the exact opposite before: stating that you should not bank on GPU futureproofing changing the math on which CPU is a better choice. And what's so damning is that when they wanted to prove that opposite take about the exact same topic they used direct competitors twice. As soon as they benefited from the gap they decided to downgrade the CPU.