Soldato
- Joined
- 1 May 2013
- Posts
- 9,927
- Location
- M28
How do you know he isn't sponsored/paid?
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Con Lake Con firmed [Warning: AdoredTV]
- Thread starter Chuk_Chuk
- Start date
He may not be sponsored by any company but he is totally partisan, biased and un objective....
His commentary needs to be viewed in light of this
He is obviously not wrong pointing out that the is significant variance in the 8700 benchmark scores (due to the inclusion of a poorly built PC or two from cheapo OEM's) but he then goes and draws completely the wrong conclusion because of his biased nature turning it into some Intel conspiracy.
There aren't loads of threads on forums like Ocuk with people moaning about multi core boost on chips like the 8700 because it just isn't a problem.... You don't even have to buy particularly expensive components... Just dont buy the cheapest nastiest PC from an OEM like Medion..
Adored just has his usual Intel hating specs on and in his world everything wrong with a PC including an Intel component can most likely be pinned on some sort of machievellian intel plot...
Worse still he's rather preaching to the choir.... None of his audience would have been that likely to buy a PC afflicted by the lower benchmark scores anyway... So his arguments are just a completely unnecessary anti Intel rant
Last edited:
Yes because a zealot posts videos like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuchUscHWSw
Oh the irony. You accuse him of being bias and drawing incorrect conclusions and then you yourself go and do the exact same thing.
It would be illegal not to disclose it. Considering how much hate he gets someone would have found out by now.
Is the HP OMEN a cheap and nasty PC?
All you've done is engage in character assassination throughout this entire thread while dancing round the issue. The issue being a 20% difference in scores across various reviews on a CPU that is supposedly being run at "stock" speeds (The point that you seem to be missing).
You've been making excuses and blaming everyone else for a problem that is squarely intels fault (Yet to see a good argument as to why it isn't). Intel is offering chips with really low base clocks compared to the CPU max turbo speed which means we get a chip that has wildly different scores depending on set up. Intel choose to set the base clock that low. Intel could have set the base clock higher or they could have released guarantees for per core turbo but they didn't. The original reviewers didn't pick up on this only Adored did (Funny enough Ian cutress gave him props for it https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/918128070023876610).
How about you engage in less Character assassination and actually engage the points that are being made.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,243
- Location
- Edinburgh
Not watched video, not a fan of his... But those defending Intel saying it's all system builders fault are missing that Intel are enabling this skimping as the system builder only needs to be able to hit that base target. Most buyers then expect (understandably) that it's as good a cpu as the reviews suggest. While the literal cpu has not changed this demonstrates that reviews as they mostly exist won't allow good comparison.
This is a difficult thing for reviewers to solve as to review eg an 8400 with crappy power, cooling etc would also be unfair as it's capable of much more. Avoiding this possibility was only possible for Intel hence I feel they should get a little flack for it. Though I still love the 8400 as the gem of the 8xxx gen.
This is a difficult thing for reviewers to solve as to review eg an 8400 with crappy power, cooling etc would also be unfair as it's capable of much more. Avoiding this possibility was only possible for Intel hence I feel they should get a little flack for it. Though I still love the 8400 as the gem of the 8xxx gen.
Interesting video. Very insightful for those looking at building and certainly worth keeping in mind since Intel moved the performance goal posts. It is a con to send out the best chips to these so called tech journalists knowing full well most can't bottoms from elbows.
What do you mean the "best chips"?
It is nothing to do with that, it is simply to do with the tdp setting/power delivery and cooling. Put a 8400 and 8700 in a good mobo with a good psu and half decent cooling and it will run at its all core boost perfectly fine. Everyone who actually has one of these chips on here can confirm this (including myself who has experience of both the 8400 and 8700).
Intel are very clear what the base clock and boost clocks are and what boost clocks mean.
There is no con here.
No it is a con. Intel have moved the goal post and are binning chips. While Intel are engaging with reviewers this way (I use that term loosely) you will always have a level of objection and that is a good thing.
Put that exact chip from the aldi pc into a decent motherboard and it will work just as it does for the reviewers. Its the specifications that are muddy here, not the silicon.
Maybe it will, but Intel say otherwise. Hence the problem.
It wont because the Medion PC's cooler is not inadequate to deal with the "over specifications" TDP, did you even bother to watch the video properly before ranting against it, because clearly you're not completely clued up on its contents.
Its not not in favour of Intel and that is enough for you to call it fake news.
Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Not all CPUs are capable of a 4.7GHz overclock and it certainly isn't guaranteed by Intel in terms of stability and lifespan.
In fact, gamersnexus found that with MCE enabled the CPU would fall over and crash in their custom blender workload so it obviously wasn't fully stable. https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3077-explaining-coffee-lake-turbo-8700k-8600k
Still struggling to see where the con is - From intel "Processor Base Frequency describes the rate at which the processor's transistors open and close. The processor base frequency is the operating point where TDP is defined. Frequency is measured in gigahertz (GHz), or billion cycles per second."
"Thermal Design Power (TDP) represents the average power, in watts, the processor dissipates when operating at Base Frequency with all cores active under an Intel-defined, high-complexity workload. Refer to Datasheet for thermal solution requirements."
https://ark.intel.com/products/126686/Intel-Core-i7-8700-Processor-12M-Cache-up-to-4_60-GHz
"Thermal Design Power (TDP) represents the average power, in watts, the processor dissipates when operating at Base Frequency with all cores active under an Intel-defined, high-complexity workload. Refer to Datasheet for thermal solution requirements."
https://ark.intel.com/products/126686/Intel-Core-i7-8700-Processor-12M-Cache-up-to-4_60-GHz
As much as it pains me to listen to his voice yes I saw the video. My comment was in reply to jiggers where he said that reviewers get the best chips. Many members here with a decent board and cooler have no issue running the cpu at full boost clocks for sustained periods.
We could go back years and find that OEM's perform less than diy builds.
You clearly didn't, if you did you wouldn't be ranting about it. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Actually Intel do not cite all core turbo boost at all with coffeelake, only base and single core boost.
If you use enthusiast grade coolers the CPU will detect that and run way above TDP and its all core base frequency, Intel cite the base frequency as 3.7Ghz, if you look at some reviews they even put 3.7Ghz next to the benchmark results sometimes even the TDP, that is incredibly misleading as its actually running at anything upto 4.7Ghz at twice the TDP.
So those reading these reviews are fooled into thinking the CPU is much faster than it actually is and on much cheaper coolers than is actually true. they think its running at 3.7Ghz and with that have much more overclocking headroom than they do and only need a £25 cooler when in fact its already running at near highest overrclockable speed and you will need £150 cooler to get the same results.
Actually Intel do not cite all core turbo boost at all with coffeelake, only base and single core boost.
If you use enthusiast grade coolers the CPU will detect that and run way above TDP and its all core base frequency, Intel cite the base frequency as 3.7Ghz, if you look at some reviews they even put 3.7Ghz next to the benchmark results sometimes even the TDP, that is incredibly misleading as its actually running at anything upto 4.7Ghz at twice the TDP.
So those reading these reviews are fooled into thinking the CPU is much faster than it actually is and on much cheaper coolers than is actually true. they think its running at 3.7Ghz and with that have much more overclocking headroom than they do and only need a £25 cooler when in fact its already running at near highest overrclockable speed and you will need £150 cooler to get the same results.
They used to define the base frequency, but also turbo frequency for every combination of active cores and when all cores were active the guaranteed turbo frequency would be higher than the base frequency. They don't have to guarantee this anymore, they only guarantee base frequency and turbo frequency for just 1 core.
The issues seem to be with the reviews then, not Intel.
If anyone can point to where Intel have claimed that any of their cpu's will always run at full boost clocks all the time i would love to see it. All of Intel's descriptions on how things work on their website are crystal clear.
Because you have a pretty wide range of performance for chips to fall into.
Its both, and that is the point Adored is making.
But none of it is a con, which is the title of this thread and the video. How it works is quite clearly documented by Intel. If it stays strictly within the TDP then it will run at the base clock. If you therefore want a product that is able to operate the cpu above the tdp, then you should research your purchase and make sure it does/has the components to do so.
The issue is both as Intel use reviewers* for advertisement.