Modern day CPU reviews and what is wrong with them.

[hyperseven]

If you watch the video you would see that he is defending Toms Hardware in a lot of ways and he agrees with some of their conclusions.

Some things he doesn't agree with Toms, he doesn't agree that the "Best CPU's" are a complete 'blue wash', he goes on to explain why he thinks that, whats more he uses Toms Hardwares own reviews and numbers to explain why the Pentium, i3 and 7700K are right but the i5's are not, when you watch all of it you soon realise Toms Hardware based their conclusion on the wrong numbers, for example they used the Ryzen stock gaming performance vs the 7600K 5Ghz OC performance to come up with their numbers, and if you take out just one game, the Ryzen 'nVidia driver' troubled Tomb Raider the Ryzen 5 results higher performance than the i5's in any case, that Toms are also ignoring their own previous article on the fact that the i5's are at maximum capacity with the GTX 1080... just as a lot of other reviewers have shown, some unwittingly.

So no.

In general, yes he is, probably has a picture of Lisa Su on his nightstand that he longs at when tucked into his AMD duvet

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

I don't think he's biased towards any side tbh. If you look at his videos, he's quite detailed and breaks down his analysis quite clearly. I think the method that he uses is fair and clear to see. It just so happens that it's showing up some of the more well known tech sites.

A quote I saw once was he's either bias or AMD really are saints compared to Nvidia and intel. I find he makes really good points that simply can't be dismissed as him being a "raving fanboy" of AMD.

 

[humbug]

I don't think he's biased towards any side tbh. If you look at his videos, he's quite detailed and breaks down his analysis quite clearly. I think the method that he uses is fair and clear to see. It just so happens that it's showing up some of the more well known tech sites.

+1.

 

[Journey]

That was a very balanced, and interesting look at how Tom's can't even interpret their own data correctly, and contradict themselves on several occasions. It's especially interesting that they at no point, take the whole platform cost in to consideration, thus removing the actual value for money component they are trying to compare in the first place.

A grade spanners at Tom's in conclusion.

 

[GAC]

That was a very balanced, and interesting look at how Tom's can't even interpret their own data correctly, and contradict themselves on several occasions. It's especially interesting that they at no point, take the whole platform cost in to consideration, thus removing the actual value for money component they are trying to compare in the first place.

A grade spanners at Tom's in conclusion.

to be blunt a lot of the tech sites are like this as are a few youtube channels now. either trying to blast out day one reviews to get them clicks so rush or are just half arsed just to lack of staff thanks to the ever decreasing amounts of money they will pay to people. least we forget the pressure to keep amd intel and nvidia happy even if its brought on the reviewers themselves being paranoid idiots.

anywho, wheres the coffeelake news i needs more cores

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Personally I think with the current price of the R5 1600 which has a reasonable cooler,the Core i5 7500 and Core i5 7600K,look rather overpriced especially since most people keep their CPUs for quite a while. The Core i7 7700K also has the problem its too expensive.