• 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.

i9 9900k pricing

haszek said:
He also claims that RTX2070 is excellent product :D I used to watch his videos but now he seems bias, or many of them are just afraid to release unfavourable review as they want to continue get free stuff.
Click to expand...

100% correct. With so many tech youtubers now, they all want to be at the top with the freebies associated with that. Gamers Nexus is my go to for unbiased stuff.
 
ViRuS2k said:
Im actually sure i seen or imagining it that the RETAIL VERSIONS where £599
then i seen people talking about the OCUK versions coming without a box
Then i seen people saying DAM we are getting OEM`s for £599 and now i see on OCUK another instance of 9900k`s but they are £619

LMFAO this is getting out of hand im sure i seen one instance that was £599 for retail but again we britans get screwed oh well no way in hell im getting this cpu from OCUK not paying £620 for retail from here, and even the £599 versions there is no garantee they have already been cheery picked for OCUK systems before you even get them.. thats my rant.
Click to expand...
indeed lol still runing a i7 5230k at 5ghz and 2 asus gtx 9080 ti matrix in sli on a asus swift 144 hrz monator why would would need to spend £5 to 7 grand just get 30% lol in real eyes. my plan is to waite 6 years till RTX is lol somtheing hehehhhe
 
I watch tom reviews, I think he's a good reviewer and he's been doing it for yrs now. He's worked hard to be able to get where he is today, but most of the stuff he reviews are out of my price range. But there's been 2 graphics cards I bought after watching his reviews on them though. But all the free stuff he gets is sickening, and as someone pointed out on here, the 9900k he received to review will be a better overclocker then what you and me will receive.
 
haszek said:
He also claims that RTX2070 is excellent product :D I used to watch his videos but now he seems bias, or many of them are just afraid to release unfavourable review as they want to continue get free stuff.
Click to expand...

To be fair he has been better than GN on the cpu stuff, GN is clearly biased in favour of AMD right now.

But yeah the whole review sector is broken, it needs to stop accepting free stuff.

GN replied to me on the manual tuning of ram on their AMD testing, and claimed they dont do it, so I asked them for clarification on why they told the PT guys they had to manually tune ram on AMD to get it stable, and am still awaiting a response to my question.
 
subbytna said:
100% correct. With so many tech youtubers now, they all want to be at the top with the freebies associated with that. Gamers Nexus is my go to for unbiased stuff.
Click to expand...

He has been very biased lately its kinda funny he is considered unbiased after all the recent anti intel videos.

Is it that "reviewer likes my favourite brand he must be unbiased" sort of thing?

Tom has been careful to both vendors, clearly not wanting to upset either, he says it how it is tho that intel are making the better chips, that doesnt make him bias, and his data as presented is one of the best in the industry, he actually has several generations of products on his data and has OC for both vendors.
 
chrcoluk said:
To be fair he has been better than GN on the cpu stuff, GN is clearly biased in favour of AMD right now.

But yeah the whole review sector is broken, it needs to stop accepting free stuff.

GN replied to me on the manual tuning of ram on their AMD testing, and claimed they dont do it, so I asked them for clarification on why they told the PT guys they had to manually tune ram on AMD to get it stable, and am still awaiting a response to my question.
Click to expand...
I thought they asked him because PT didn't use AMD xmp for RAM, they only setup speed = poor timings. So to make it equal with Intel (For which they used xmp, and xmp also automatically sets decent timings ) they should've setup memory timings manually for AMD.
 
I can remember when he celebrated posting his 250 vid review online years ago now and he built himself a pc online as a reminder of his mum that died earlier that year. Can't remember what it was called now, but he had a name for that pc.

Plus he does competitions and all sorts
 
The capability of running ram at a speed is part of the testing process as the memory controller is part of a cpu, if for whatever reason the ram wasnt stable without excessive work (which manually tuning timings is) they should have simply downclocked the ram.

So e.g. if ram is stable at 3200 on intel in XMP, then by all means test at 3200, but if the same ram on AMD only works with those timings at 2933, then the fair thing to do is test at 2933, and the performance hit is part and parcel of what users can reasonable expect. It is why I am not surprised we have users on ocuk, trying to get their ram stable at the speed reviewers like GN tested at, as they were given a false picture of AMD's capabilities.

I checked back on GN's AMD review and he didnt disclose he had trouble getting the ram to work. The first time I knew of him having issues was when he told the PT guy in that interview.

Clearly there is disagreement here on what is considered a fair way of testing, but my view wont change, I feel if you doing things like whacking fans to 100% to avoid thermal throttling, and manually tuning ram to get by performance ceilings, then its beyond fair testing.

Ironically the way I think things should be tested actually favours AMD which is to test ram at supported speeds which is a case where AMD would get better ram performance as they support higher speeds than intel. Either that or go for ram as fast as possible, but if a cpu cannot reasonably handle it then drop down the speed even if its slower than the competitor.
 
chrcoluk said:
The capability of running ram at a speed is part of the testing process as the memory controller is part of a cpu, if for whatever reason the ram wasnt stable without excessive work (which manually tuning timings is) they should have simply downclocked the ram.

So e.g. if ram is stable at 3200 on intel in XMP, then by all means test at 3200, but if the same ram on AMD only works with those timings at 2933, then the fair thing to do is test at 2933, and the performance hit is part and parcel of what users can reasonable expect. It is why I am not surprised we have users on ocuk, trying to get their ram stable at the speed reviewers like GN tested at, as they were given a false picture of AMD's capabilities.

I checked back on GN's AMD review and he didnt disclose he had trouble getting the ram to work. The first time I knew of him having issues was when he told the PT guy in that interview.

Clearly there is disagreement here on what is considered a fair way of testing, but my view wont change, I feel if you doing things like whacking fans to 100% to avoid thermal throttling, and manually tuning ram to get by performance ceilings, then its beyond fair testing.

Ironically the way I think things should be tested actually favours AMD which is to test ram at supported speeds which is a case where AMD would get better ram performance as they support higher speeds than intel. Either that or go for ram as fast as possible, but if a cpu cannot reasonably handle it then drop down the speed even if its slower than the competitor.
Click to expand...
You keep looking from Intel defense.

If it was up to me I wouldn't mind to see testing with Intel platform having memory setup @4000 because they can, while AMD at 2933/3200 whatever works. But if the guy is not using memory's xmp profile then it is crippling the results. GN (even though I don't like the guy) he was right to ask him why. If they didn't have stable ram they should've used lower speed or different memory and not manually setup just one thing and claim it's ok.
 
Zeed said:
guess You are waiting for Playstation 5 and next Xbox just wait till Brexit lands and prices will jump even more lol
Click to expand...

Unlike most, I don't actually buy cards to play games anymore so makes no odds to me. Design, engineer, build and work to rough pricing if needed so only then do price/performance metrics come into account which is rarely an issue for the most part. :)
 
haszek said:
You keep looking from Intel defense.

If it was up to me I wouldn't mind to see testing with Intel platform having memory setup @4000 because they can, while AMD at 2933/3200 whatever works. But if the guy is not using memory's xmp profile then it is crippling the results. GN (even though I don't like the guy) he was right to ask him why. If they didn't have stable ram they should've used lower speed or different memory and not manually setup just one thing and claim it's ok.
Click to expand...

Yeah.

@chrcoluk have a look here.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom