-Fran- :
Oh, Juan, I see you conveniently ignored the "PCIe" lanes discussion from Ian. He's been trying to correct everyone on the subject, but I'll give you a summary:
- Intel has more than 44 lanes *on paper*, but in reality, the CPU maxes out at 44 and the extra 24 are provided by the north bridge. If you're planning to use the lanes for latency sensitive stuff, even with AMDs "less than stellar" drivers, they *will* reach parity in such tasks. No amount of moaning from either camp will change that fact. AMD is just faster, on paper, in regards to overall latency and bandwidth when it comes to PCIe lanes and Intel knows that.
- Intel (via marketing, obviously) is now trying to paint their platforms in the same light as AMD's "MOAR MOAR" stuff. PCIe lanes is now their new battle horse in their slides, from what I understood from Ian's rants. Hence you trying to paint it in a better light.
So, again, you need to read beyond the paper here. That is what Ian is doing (or trying to).
As just explained in former posts, Ian is only counting lanes coming directly from the CPU whereas ignores the lanes comming from the PCH. He is ignoring that Intel provides PCIe3 for all platform lanes whereas AMD gives a mixture of PCI3 and PCie2 lanes. He is ignoring any other advantage of the X299 platform related to RAID/SATA/NVMe. He also ignores that those CPU lanes are maximum possible and not what one can find in X399 boards. Thus, the motherboard editor mentioned how the GIGABYTE X399 Aorus Gaming 7 leaves users only 48 usable PCIe lanes via expansion slots. because M.2, USB 3.1, etc. consume the rest of available lanes.
jdwii :
What i find interesting is people calling AnandTech anti Intel now like WHAT i've been reading on these sites for the past 10 years and i all i kept reading was how they are Amd haters haha same as Techspot when Amd fanboys claimed Steve was a Intel fanboy and now he is all in love with ryzen.
Anandtech was humorously named IntelTech due to his bias when Anand was the boss. Anand is gone and new boses are biased in the opposite way. The site is now humorously named AMDTech. Not only reviews, but forums as well. This is well-known and discussed in several forums. Once the media reported an investigation about the dirty tactics used by biased mods. The title was: "Anandtech forums on trial: The corruption runs deep". I hope someone publishes something similar now, because the situations is 10times worse than then.
As many people has noted, Steve has been publishing a series of ridiculous articles. Either he is biased or he is just incompetent. Some gems in his recent reviews
1) The guy tested in GPU-bound and frame-limiting settings. Crippling the performance of Intel chips. That is the reason why OC the 7800X by a huge 34% did only bring 3% higher framerates (the CPU was being bottlenecked). The guy tried to excuse himself pretending that OC the 7800X didn't bring net performance gains because, in his opinion, there was something wrong with the Skylake-X chip. But there was nothing wring with the Skylake-X chip, because the KBL 7700k by 16% did only bring 2% higher framerates (the Kabylake CPU was being bottlenecked as well). The problem was on his testing using GPU-bound and frame-limiting settings.
2) The guy finally admitted he didn't even test a retail 7800X chip, but he tested a sample. Funny enough in no part of the review he make explicit that he wasn't testing a retail chip.
3) If this wasn't enough, he used a motherboard is incompatible with the 7800X and he managed to burn the CPU thanks to that.
4) He often get high power consumption figures for Intel and low for AMD.
There are lots of discussions about Steve reviews in other forums, and people discussing if he is biased or just incompetent.