3 ms·

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)

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
>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. Going back to your previous comment >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... I don't see the contradiction here. The specific advice he was arguing against in the video is "you should get ryzen CPUs because they have more cores and therefore they futureproof better". His argument against that is that games are still single threaded and will be in the near future, so any theoretical benefits you get from more cores will take forever to materialize. He's not making a blanket statement arguing against any sort of futureproofing.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  If you can't see the multiple layers of contradiction at this point, I'm not sure how much more plain it can be... In video 1 in the series he makes a side mention about viewers previously complaining "why are you comparing these at low resolutions, the differences you're exposing won't matter". But the point of that video is to compare two CPUs for gaming, so he goes at length about the margin exposed in a way that would imply the 8700k "won"... despite briefly mentioning "under most conditions there is no actual difference" right afterwards. 3 years after that he says does that again, going at length about the 8700k winning, but then walking it back to "but really they're about the same" - Fast forward to now, and this time he's making a video that directly addresses the complaints about low resolution testing. So this time he chooses a slower CPU, even faster GPUs, ends up with slightly bigger gaps than the ones he previously wrote off (which are more than accounted for by both the even faster GPU this time, and slower competitor). Honesty would dictate a similar "they're essentially the same", but this time he goes on to beat his chest with "well this is why we call out the margin!" I wonder if maybe you're missing that the dishonesty doesn't stem from having falsified anything, it's about the obvious conflict of interest where they intentionally set up each case to show as much as a gap as possible regardless of bearing on reality because that's the flashiest content that lets them make the hottest possible takes.

gruez 4y ago

>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. Going back to your previous comment >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... I don't see the contradiction here. The specific advice he was arguing against in the video is "you should get ryzen CPUs because they have more cores and therefore they futureproof better". His argument against that is that games are still single threaded and will be in the near future, so any theoretical benefits you get from more cores will take forever to materialize. He's not making a blanket statement arguing against any sort of futureproofing.

BoorishBears 4y ago
If you can't see the multiple layers of contradiction at this point, I'm not sure how much more plain it can be... In video 1 in the series he makes a side mention about viewers previously complaining "why are you comparing these at low resolutions, the differences you're exposing won't matter". But the point of that video is to compare two CPUs for gaming, so he goes at length about the margin exposed in a way that would imply the 8700k "won"... despite briefly mentioning "under most conditions there is no actual difference" right afterwards. 3 years after that he says does that again, going at length about the 8700k winning, but then walking it back to "but really they're about the same" - Fast forward to now, and this time he's making a video that directly addresses the complaints about low resolution testing. So this time he chooses a slower CPU, even faster GPUs, ends up with slightly bigger gaps than the ones he previously wrote off (which are more than accounted for by both the even faster GPU this time, and slower competitor). Honesty would dictate a similar "they're essentially the same", but this time he goes on to beat his chest with "well this is why we call out the margin!" I wonder if maybe you're missing that the dishonesty doesn't stem from having falsified anything, it's about the obvious conflict of interest where they intentionally set up each case to show as much as a gap as possible regardless of bearing on reality because that's the flashiest content that lets them make the hottest possible takes.