Best example, the 5800X3D this article is about. Huge promises before release, do some small test that doesn't remotely represent the huge amount of different games out there and the results look very good and about in line with that. Do a real test over many games like Hardware Unboxed did, and suddenly the difference is all but gone. Heck, even the PCGH released a more differentiated test than this. Then there is the horrid application performance when put in comparision with any chip in the same price range, or 100+ bucks less. Add to that the price, and suddenly the awesome gamer CPU isn't so awesome and different than their competition, both AMD and Intel, anymore... and that doesn't even account for the billions of hardware configurations out there that play a role in it all.
Or in other words, reality is often vastly different from the lab.
How? How can people see the same thing completely different?
5800X3D is every much the CPU AMD said it will be, they delivered 100% of what they said, I could say even more than that, because they said "on average +15% over 5900X" and it's actually more than that, it's about +19% on average better. They said it's for gamers, a gamign CPU and that's what it is. AMD never said it's an all around champ in everything. It's also the best top end perf/$$$ gaming CPU at the moment.
What more did you want from a refresh of an almost 2 year old generation?
If you want bigger leaps, wait for Zen4, you'll see them and everyone else will see them too.
You seem to treat leaks as the plague... Well you said it, you don't look for them and you only see them if they happen to come your way, right?
Well that the difference between us: I look for them in all the sources possible and from dozens of sources I have a hierarchy of which are the more trusted ones and not and from these multiple sources I then make my own mind about what are the possibilities and probabilities, also based on older leaks proven true.
I don't need them to be 100% accurate, like someone visited the future accurate, but take for example the RDNA2 leaks where a lot of people said the top GPU will be 2080Ti level and ended up looking like fools, while Tom from MLiD said from the start it will be about 3080 performance levels. He was closest to the truth, because it ended up even better than that.
If anything the number or leakers, but more important the accuracy and quality of leaks from some leakers have gotten really high in the past years, much better than in the past. It's 2022, not 2010.
We have completely different views, I understand yours, but I don't agree with it. I consider it narrow, very narrow.
Let's see how wrong these leaks I believe in are, when these products will launch:
- Zen4 with beat Raptor Lake by about 5-10% in both ST and MT.
- RDNA3 will beat Lovelace by about 5-10% in raster and probably tie in RT performance, while consuming less power. If AMD does win, they will charge a premium price, possibly more than nvidia for the top halo GPU (and that I won't like at all).
I believed in the leaks of RDNA2 being better than a 2080 Ti and it was indeed much better, I belived in the leaks that PS5 is at least as good as XSX despite the fools eating the TF PR BS believing XSX will crush PS5 because it has 2 extra TF and it turned out the leak was true, PS5 is not worse, actually in many cases it's better than XSX. So why should I not believe leaks that have a high probability of coming true from proven sources?
I don't believe any leak from anyone, like some say now RDNA3 is 3x Navi 21. I can discern from BS and exaggeration and which would be much closer to reality and which won't be... I also don't care much about leaks for products that are more than 1 year away, like 2-3 years away. I think it's silly to believe those leaks because too much can change until then.
Anyway, I have said all I wanted. See ya in Q3-Q4.