This is a follow-up to my previous video to clear up the confusion. Check out the first video here: https://youtu.be/oPBjyn8nkEUSocial media:https://www.inst...
youtu.be
Oh yeah then there was this where Steve came across as a complete *****.
I had an FX-9590, it was not a good CPU, however watching a lot of tech tubers at the time and since i would have believed it was completely unusable, that's not the experience i had with it, it ran all of my games with an R9 290, a high end GPU at the time just as fast as a GTX 780, perfectly fine, and yet a lot of these channels would say that a dual core Ivy Bridge Pentium G was 2X as fast in games, that became the prevailing understanding to such an extent it became a meme.
And yet the 4690K it was replaced with ran little better most of the time and in some cases worse.
I would love to have seen a dual core Ivy Bridge Pentium G run a 64 player BF4 map with an R9 290, because the FX 9590 did that just as well as the 4690K did, i have no doubt it would have been a slide show.
If they don't like something they will publish reviews with their own personal bias all over them, Steve Burke hated Threadripper early on, he couldn't criticise them for being faster than the Xeon's, but he didn't like it, all the way through Gen 1 Threadripper sniffing and snarling at them using the "AMD MOAR COARS" meme from the Bulldozer days over and over again.
He never had this problem with the high core count Xeon's, ever, always gave them high prase, along comes Threadripper smashing them and he hates it.
Same with Intel's GPU's, they have already decided that AMD's job to make cheaper Nvidia GPU's for us isn't working, none of them ever did like AMD's GPU's much even when they were competitive, its why we are in this situation, so now they over promote Intel GPU's and they are not telling you the whole truth at just how bad they actually are.
I don't really trust any of these large reviewers.