Not really sure why this stuff blew up but I like Adored to be honest. A bit of an off hand comment about Bitwit being a dimwit instead is maybe ill advised but the easy pun and fact that Kyle made some insulting vaguely racist comments makes me think not the worst thing he could have said.
Let it all go and get back to tech I say. (The Winchester for a pint until this whole thing blows over)
Interesting, thanks for the link.
Here's his follow up video. Interesting to see how big a difference AMD drivers make compared to Nvidia's.
it seems like Wendell et all are the only people trying to be adults. though at the end of the day, i'm going to buy whatever it is i feel like buying at the time. i don't have time for personal jabs and politics. we get enough of that already.
It seems like Jim at AdoredTV is stirring things up again.
link from other thread on this forum: Testing ryzen with Amd vs Nvidia GPU, DX11 vs DX12
Yes, he compared a x2 RX480 against a single 1070 and Maxwell Titan X. Really shady, specially when he didn't have on-screen-monitoring for this side-by-side footages. Also, he touched on the subject of "smoothness" but never measured it when he had previously made a video on how to use PresentMon which is a software that works on DX12 and Vulkan APIs.
Really, I thought he was showing how 2x RX 480's and DX12 helped Ryzen much more then the 7700K?
Oh I now see where he was speculating on GPU at the end. I think he was mostly babbling and that was not scripted or the point of the video. I mostly tuned that part out. Again I would never use one review as definitive info but as a direction for further investigation.
Well, tbh I found his video interesting since he pointed out that reducing the GPU bottleneck (actually, I'm not sure how 1 1070 performs vs 2 rx480), or using a GPU that makes better use of DX12 does reduce the gap between the 1800X and the 7700k. Which is quite in contrast to other reviews that tried to reduce the GPU bottleneck in other ways.
One thing is absolutely true regardless of what you think about the guy: There has not been enough testing between CPUs running AMD cards. Dual 480s are a thing, Furys are still a thing (and not that far away from 1070s, just sayin'). But nearly every review with gaming benchmarks runs team green exclusively.
Stuff like that is why I still like to watch his videos.
That's partly AMD's fault, it's their job to provide review samples of these cards. They know they don't have the mindshare so it's up to them to make that bridge with the reviewers. They've done a good job so far with the Ryzen though, not so much on the GPUs.
BS! Think about how many RX 480 videos there were.
AdoredTV didn't have a FuryX or 390x or a 290x, he would have to get those out of his pocket, this is the problem with many small review sites.
I'm not talking about him, I mean all the other reviewers.
Like how Hardware Unboxed specifically said in one of his videos recently that he decided to test with the 1060 instead of the 480 because he was also testing with the 1070 and 1080. He definitely has access to AMD cards (I'm assuming at least one Fury card and likely several 480s), but didn't bother testing with them. It seems like a reasonable thing to do. To want to see how things work with the AMD gpus. Once you get the picture with the higher end NV cards, there isn't much of a reason to test with the 1060. That data point can be basically extrapolated from the higher end NV cards. Scale it down some and there you go. But we haven't been seeing how well it performs with AMD cards.
I think that there have been a lot of trends recently when it comes to testing Ryzen, from testing various resolutions, to testing with cores disabled, to testing with various speed memory, etc. And I think that this will be a trend soon enough, and it might all be because of Adored that it happens. And that is something that I am thankful for. It was something that was going largely unnoticed by the rest of the media and it is definitely something that I will be interested in seeing. That said, I hadn't really been that concerned about it because we are definitely going to see how well Ryzen performs with AMD gpus once Vega comes out. People are basically going to be forced (at least for this release, and I assume with most gpu releases from here on out) to have an Intel system and an AMD system. Preferably a 7700k and an 1800x since those are the parts that perform best in games from both sides.
I think the basic takeout is that DX11 vs DX12 results for the same CPU depend heavily on the GPU used. This has a few corollaries:
- Any comparison between DX11 and DX12 depends on both the CPU and the GPU used, since all 4 combinations gave different numbers
- Any comparison between CPUs in terms of relative DX12 vss DX11 performance depends on the GPU used
- Any comparison between GPUs under either DX11 and DX12, and the difference between the two, will depend on the CPU used
This would mean that tests based on a single hardware configuration (up to the tested component) convey limited information on what to expect from the parts tested. In this example, an Nvidia GPU owner would draw misleading conclusions about CPU performance in DX12 from a review using an RX480 CF, and vice versa. The owner of an i7 CPU would draw misleading conclusions from a GPU review under a Ryzen system. And so on.
More generally, I think this series of videos adds to the more general topic of how many limitations gaming benchmarks have as a way to learn about CPUs. Although you could say all of them are just different faces of the same limitation, namely, that many things are being tested at the same time: the CPU, the GPU, the API, the game itself (let's not forget this was all for one game: repeating all these tests for a different game will probably deliver yet more different numbers).
If a gamer sees a test for a game he plays, using a very similar hardware configuration to his own, he can obtain useful information about a particular upgrade. As a general test of the capabilities of a CPU, gaming benchmarks are not very informative.
I think the bulk of the really in-depth analysis will largely remain on the smaller channels like MindBlank Tech and AdoredTV. The rest will go with the run-of-the-mill Max/Avg/Minimum just because of how time consuming it is to do just those 3 let alone do a extensive analysis for every game like AdoredTV did just for Tomb Raider alone (100+hrs).
I don't think any review site should be complaining about to much options to create content.... It is their job.
That would be ideal since I'm sick of hearing "it feels smoother on [x]" with no graphs and numbers to back it up.