Intel hiding true performance comparison alongside AMD

I never heard of that site, but the only thing I can say at this point is that the site owner should invest in Excel or download Open Office to make some charts and graphs. Posting the scores vertically makes comparisons difficult.

DeaconFrost said:

I never heard of that site, but the only thing I can say at this point is that the site owner should invest in Excel or download Open Office to make some charts and graphs. Posting the scores vertically makes comparisons difficult.

Disregarding this comment as it has nothing to do with the topic.
Thank you.

It actually does, because a well-known, reputable review site would know the very basics of any review....present the material in a way that the audience can easily interpret. Given that mistake, and the various comments left after the review, it makes me question the validity. Who's to say the author didn't have some other agenda?

DeaconFrost said:

It actually does, because a well-known, reputable review site would know the very basics of any review....present the material in a way that the audience can easily interpret. Given that mistake, and the various comments left after the review, it makes me question the validity. Who's to say the author didn't have some other agenda?

The basics of a review is to make a point across, if people have trouble interpreting the results, it stops being their problem, they interpretated the material in form of a video to provide a better visual aid, and provide live benchmarking, something ''wel-known,reputable'; review sites oftenly do not do.

Erick Aguilar said:

The basics of a review is to make a point across, if people have trouble interpreting the results, it stops being their problem, they interpretated the material in form of a video to provide a better visual aid, and provide live benchmarking, something ''wel-known,reputable'; review sites oftenly do not do.

Interesting logic. The data are poorly presented, but it's still better than what is done by familiar review sites because the same information is given in a 13 minute YouTube video. (I watched about half of it. Didn't seem to contain more data than was in the table.)

Good luck convincing people with that line of reasoning.

10 years ago, the mainstream sites preferred the AMD Athlon 64 line over Intel (P4). I liked my Athlon 64 X2 4400+ system (Socket 939) quite a lot, and it's still running in the hands of a friend. I'd very much like to see AMD take the lead in desktop CPUs again. This sort of stuff doesn't convince me that they have.

I watched that video when it came out because I watch all of Logan's videos. He is a big supporter of facts vs popular opinion, which is why he conducted the tests. That being said.......the AMD CPU did not beat the Intel chips in every single game, and they only tested a handful. At one point in the video he makes a reference to overclocking, but never mentioned anything else about it, so I'm not sure if these CPU's were overclocked to different levels, had different cooling solutions so he could push one further, etc. What I do know is that Logan is usually on the up and up and if there is any truth to what he was reporting, it WILL be duplicated by other people in the near future.

Everybody knows that the 8350 will beat the 3570K in programs that utilize multiple cores/threads.........but in a core-per-core foot race, all other major reviewers say the 3570K/3770K is the better performer. Anandtech has shown it, along with several others. If there is a plot afoot, I don't believe Anandtech would be in on it.

When the 8350 came out, it was priced about the same as the 3570K for a reason.............it was worth about $200! If it ran as good as a 3770K, AMD would have had the sense to price it accordingly.

Could this be related to the MB as well? AMD now provide a close chip relationship between MB chipsets, CPU/GPU/APU much the same way that Intel have done over the years.

In a lot of the benchmarks I have seen more recent, more and more games are taking advantage of Multi-Cored CPU's. Intel has always been strongest in the single core arena, but AMD in the domestic markets have grown its array of Multi-Cored CPU/GPU/APU's.

I have seen some very impressive benchmarks utilizing Mantle API's, which make the AMD chipset shine, and not just because Mantle is hardwired into the CPU, but it is the first real contender to shake up the API situation in the first place. This is not a new war, for those that remember the SSE etc hardwired functionality some many moons ago.

Personally, I don't root for any company, but view 1) What do I need to do 2) Who makes the right combination of CPU/GPU and Chipsets to fulfill that goal 3) Are there compromises I can suffer to fit a budget 4) Should I expand/Upgrade one component, what is the knock on effect.

Like anything that requires more than one question answered, it needs project managing. In project managing you have only 3 criteria... Cost, Time, Quality, from that, you can have 2 out of three at the expense of the third. I.E if you want high quality in a short timespan, you have to pay for it. Your own circumstances will dictate what's important.

Standing back far enough, consider that AMD has won the contract to supply the 3 leading consoles with CPU/GPU/APU and chipsets from some of the biggest players in the gaming market. Intel is still the main leader in the CPU market, but AMD is still biting their heels and getting much closer than Intel would perhaps like. Either way, their war, gives us more power for less money, if it didn't exist, we would still all be using 286 chips.

I considered many combinations before going down the route I did, making my biggest expense a nice R9 280x 3GB DDR5 by MSI