So, I know they regurgitate this article to simply include updates, which makes commentary sometimes seem "off" because it might not still be relevant, but I just commented a few months ago on this and feel the need to again.
You NOW have the Thermalright Peerless Assassin 120 SE as the #1 "Big air CPU cooler" on the list, and once again, Matt, this is just (insert favorite expletive here, if you like) ludicrous. And, it's not just an opinion this time, although, I didn't bother to bring the empirical evidence because, well, I'm too damn lazy these days. I might have to do it though.
So, how do you put that cooler in #1, when you KNOW damn well it can't compete with the Deepcool Assassin III, Noctua NH-D14/15/15s, or any of the other big coolers? I would REALLY like to see some direct comparison, empirical data, that show this, or else this cooler (Much as I am a HUGE fan of Thermalright and use AND recommend them more than almost anybody else on the TH forums) needs to not be in the top spot unless the top spot is "best performance for the price" in which case I'd agree. Purely top performance though, not so much.
I've just taken a 12700k with a Noctua NH-D15 on my bench, which was only using that cooler temporarily while I was setting up the OS installation and applications for this owner, and replaced it with the Peerless Assassin 120 SE, and I even pulled it, cleaned it again and did the installation over just to be sure, and it simply didn't even come close to the performance of the D15. There was like an 8°C difference. So then I tried the NH-U14S I have on hand as well, and it was close, very close, but the U14S lost to it. But barely, and it's so much smaller overall. But bottom line is, unless it IS "bang for the buck" performance, which the article simply does not say, then it at the very least it's misleading. At worst, it's simply "flavor of the week" journalism.
I understand the need to keep things fresh, but I also understand that this is a long time well respected site when it comes to reviews, or at least it used to be, and it doesn't feel like we are living up to that standard in terms of being accurate when we say "best" of something, and are maybe losing sight of being accurate in our reporting. And I think I'm being lenient in that regard.
There is nothing wrong with the writing. The problem is obviously coming from a higher position than that I think. I'm just saying. Let's get back to at least being reasonably accurate when we say "best" about something. Even if it's just categorically accurate.