-
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.
Intel Core Ultra 9 285k 'Arrow Lake' Discussion/News ("15th gen") on LGA-1851
- Thread starter Dave2150
- Start date
Soldato
What? Don't tell me you're gaming? Pfft.
The thought of seeing those 7-zip bench numbers, are what gets me through the work week.
Soldato
But they can. They could, for example, run a series of games tests at 2K and 4K for a range of older CPU's, so that people can see what they would get in an upgrade.
I always remember upgrading from a 4th gen to an 8th gen. It made no difference to the highest FPS, but it made a very significant difference to the lows and to the smoothness of the game. This is the sort of information people want to know.
It's difficult for the reviewers, but I just think that presenting the information they do is kinda pointless. It's like saying - look how well this racecar does on a racetrack. It's useless information for someone who lives in a city.
It seems to me that the reviewers are hyping everyone up over the 9800X3D and destroying the intel, when truth is that many people wouldn't notice the difference between the two, because they don't game at 1080P. Well, I suppose that's not quite true, but perhaps people shouldn't be as hyped as they are. The tests are misleading people.
Last edited:
its a bit like the Idle temps which is most of the time you have it turned on vs the 2-4 hours of gaming a night
Ah so it's an Intel Vs AMD issue rather than CPU performance, gotcha!
But seriously - what info would you get from a 2k/4k test that you wouldn't get from 1080p testing? The same, but reduced margins because you become more GPU limited. They test 1080p because the GPU bottleneck is removed and you are testing purely CPU performance. There is no instance where another CPU would perform better at 4k than it does at 1080p. The tests were exactly the same when Intel was thumping AMD.
I'd love a review where the reviewer uses the exact GPU, motherboard, RAM, PSU and monitor as me, but it's just not going to happen. You're going to have to decide what to buy for yourself based on your own use cases, not have a reviewer tell you.
Caporegime
If you want 4K testing added that's fine but if what you're looking for is 1080P removed you're behaving in exactly the same way that AMD fans did during the Bulldozer years, you hate it because it makes Intel look bad.
Last edited:
I don't get this because reviewers do show 4k graphs of older CPUs. You do get to the point where they can't be constantly updated because every time a CPU comes out there will also be multiple updates to Windows and games so to be fair you'd need to fully retest all CPUs to be accurate and reviewers simply do not have the time to spend a day or so per CPU. The thing is, you know how your own CPU performs so you can get a rough idea of how a newer one will perform based on the numbers provided by reviewers.
They simply cannot cater to every single scenario or hardware combination so that's down to you to fill in the gaps.
But a lot of CPU reviews don't give you enough information to fill in the gaps from... i.e. the power use while gaming from 1080p often does not represent the power use when gaming at 4K which can be quite a bit different and even counter-intuitive sometimes, sure that might change again down the road with future GPUs.
Another aspect not really covered and sure it isn't something you spend a lot of time doing, but I setup a bunch of systems awhile back installing games and software, etc. and there was a big difference between some otherwise fairly similar CPUs and sure you don't spend a lot of time doing those tasks but it is still not a negligible factor. Would be interesting to see the results of benchmarking the shader compilation on something like Hogwarts Legacy albeit the shader compilation in that game is a bit of an aberration and something I'm sure they could fix.
Last edited:
If a CPU review doesn't have the info you want find one that does. There's no shortage of CPU reviewers. And things like shader compilation times is a niche within a niche.
Maybe what you really want is bespoke CPU reviews where you can pay someone to test exactly what you want in the exact way you want it done.
But it is pretty relevant information - shader compilation performance can make a difference also to frame times in some games and hence the feel of the game vs the on paper performance numbers (which isn't something itself which can easily be measured due to also a subjective component as some people are more sensitive to it than others).
A lot of CPU benchmarks are quite limited in what they really tell you - which is why I spend quite a bit of time playing about with stuff myself, usually get slated for mentioning stuff then more often than not get proved correct in the long run when someone finally does a proper deep dive :s
Last edited:
You're asking too much from a launch CPU review. Maybe you'll get details like that further down the road after a specialist website/youtube channel does a deep dive but that's of little interest to the majority of people who just want to know is it x% faster than this other CPU.
Really not hard to throw in at least a couple of games tested at 4K, etc. some reviews even do but far too sporadically (TPU usually cover some benchmarks but don't cover power use, etc. in different scenarios - at least a small amount lets people fill in the gaps).
Last edited:
All these questions are answered fully in the two videos HUB uploaded. One of those was even more succinct for those that really don't get the point of CPU performance testing. In the grand scheme of things I'm a complete luddite when it comes to the minutae of this stuff, but even I can understand why the tests are how they are.
You have to ask yourself - why do all the main reviewers test in this way? Occam's Razor.
It's like arguing with flat earthers!
You have to ask yourself - why do all the main reviewers test in this way? Occam's Razor.
It's like arguing with flat earthers!
Please don't tell me you think the earth is round and people underneath are walking around upside down
Last edited:
The people that had the most questions and wanted native 2k/4k testing are from 9800X3D reviews and videos...I'm happy to be corrected as reviewer 1080p testing methods was not a concern when Arrowlake reviewed 3-4 weeks ago.
You speak about the losing side wanting 4K results and then want 4K results with a 5090.... welcome to the losing side.
Last edited:
![[Death]](/styles/overclockers/avatars/4.png){kind=avatar}
Associate
Team on loosing side? I don’t care what cpu I get. As long as the gains are good 
and yes I play nothing but 4k with super marginal differences . Would be nice to see a few 4k tests . Not everyone on the forum is a fanboy
and yes I play nothing but 4k with super marginal differences . Would be nice to see a few 4k tests . Not everyone on the forum is a fanboy Team on loosing side? I don’t care what cpu I get. As long as the gains are good
Personally don't care for AL, but I find these gaming CPU reviews tend to give people a very specific picture which is at odds with maybe the reality especially depending on certain usages. Especially if people are pairing a CPU up with something less than a 4090. Far too many people are just regurgitating what the reviews say rather than having any experience beyond just the system they've built/bought.