No, that's not all he says. He clearly says that they know what Logan is saying isn't true. They also dismiss the idea of unreleased drivers adding performance to the AMD. Lastly, they openly admit to not having watched Logan's videos, and despite that still dismiss Logan's results. They don't even know exactly what Logan's results are and they still dismiss them. Don't tell people to watch the whole hour long video before commenting when the people making the video won't even take the time to watch 15 minutes before running their mouths.
I had some respect to Linux. I am now disapointed...
Linus should do the benchmarking and compariasion rather than rushing like those neckbeard fanboys, hey Intel is better no matter the result and that crap. Its ignorance and lazyness to watch a video long 10-15 minutes max.
I will buy only AMD. Since I am pissed off because Intel intentionally sabotaged AMD and Intel sucks. I liked Intel P4 but from where I got my first PC it was from HG Spot shop that was involved into scandal that Intel made.
Linus/Slick/Crazy Russian obviously does have benchmarks documented about this.
You're the one who's goin' off.
You all sound like a bunch of mindless fanboys! He didn't readily dismiss it, he said that the AMD will win in certain scenarios, and he hasn't even watched the video.
Has the thought ever cropped into your mind, that Logan's tests may be faulty in some way? Obviously Logan wouldn't deliberately tamper with the results, but it's always possible that the results are wrong due to some factors that were unthought of.
Pretty sure he said Logan's wrong, as you said, without having seen the video. It's intellectually dishonest to dismiss claims that you know nothing about.
This battle and retaliation will never end
[img]http://i.imgur.com/7ZqOfvH.gif[/img]
And you, sir, sound like the type of person who shouts fanboy at the top of his lungs. How did he not really dismiss it? You either dismiss it, or you don't. He clearly said "Logan may have found some very specific situations in which the AMD out performed..." The "certain scenarios" he set up were very specific and he limited the AMD's ability to pulled ahead to just those areas. He immediately and without hesitation dismissed the unreleased drivers portion. Has the thought ever cropped into your mind, that maybe someone talking about something they haven't looked into is invalidating and they are therefore not worthy of your defense?
I think the point that we should all take from the comparison video is that both processors are great options for a gaming PC. The problem with benchmarks is they only exist to determine which device is the fastest under full load, while in common use scenarios for the majority of people, full load power is not needed. As games are now, you won't see a wide margin of difference between a 3570K and an FX-8350. So, there is no reason to just blow off the the FX-8350 because of benchmarks, especially when the performance of both CPUs is close enough to blur the lines between a clear winner and loser. Then when you consider that an AMD platform is generally a cheaper alternative to intels, the FX-8350 becomes a better choice for those looking to save on cash, or just reinvest the difference in a better video card, or faster RAM. And after all of this debate, what has really changed? AMD remains just as competitive as always.
That said, I should admit that I just ordered parts for a 3570K build. Logan and Wendel's comparison had me seriously rethinking my decision of going intel, but what it came down to was that I want to future-proof myself a little better with Thunderbolt, and gen 3 PCI express, as well as possibly fool around with a bootable hackintosh environment, for which Gigabyte's Z77 chipset is said to be an easy platform to do so. If my sole objective was to build a gaming rig, my choice would likely be AMD. I should also say that I'm coming off of an AMD Phenom II 955 BE build that has served me well since 2009, and I expect it to continue doing well as a NAS server.
Pardon me boov? I don't remember mentioning either Intel or AMD in my post. It would be better if you didn't generlize your comments.
Maybe there is something faulty about Logan's benchmarks, I can't see how, but maybe. Linus, however, didn't know either - because he didn't watch the video. If he's really as good as many people are saying, shouldn't he be really interested in some infomation that goes against his current understanding of the equipment?
At least Logan comes with a presentation of real-world gaming data. Not just bullshit off the cuff comments. 'Nuff said...
Well, as it turns out, LinusTechTips is sponsored by Intel, go figure. I'm not saying that has anything to do with his blatant dismissiveness, but it could explain some things. Linus has always had an Intel bias though, even before they became one of his sponsors. Here's the proof of partnership with Intel (just watch the first 20 seconds):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEdjLXf_2rk
I like Linus, and I love to watch LinusTechTips, but as others have already pointed out, I take his reviews with a grain of salt. He, like 3DGameMan, "reviews" products, but has never given anything a negative review - ever. Neither of them have ever even pointed out a single con when reviewing products.
He also doesn't abide by the "full discosure" law. While I'm not certain if this law applies in Canada, full disclosure means that, by law, if you are reviewing or demonstrating a product that was sent to you for free or at a discount for review purposes, you are required to disclose this somewhere so that the audience knows that there is a potential for bias. The same thing applies if you have been paid to do a review, but I'm not sure if he necessarily gets paid for individual reviews.
His NZXT Switch 810 review is a prime example about how he never gives bad reviews or points out cons (the Switch 810 is a fantastic case by the way - I'm not saying it isn't). I'm using it as an example for several reasons, one is because he gave it an overwhelmingly positive review and acted like a kid in a candy store throughout the entire review, BUT:
- When asked why he still uses his TJ-07 instead of the Switch 810, he responded (I'm paraphrasing a bit): "Because I hate it. Way too much plastic on the Switch for my liking." Why not point this out in the review then? If you "hate" something, why do you pretend it's the best thing since sliced bread with all the enthusiasm in the world during the review?
- Someone in the video comments pointed out how a part of the case was very obviously damaged during shipping, but Linus completely ignored this damage during the review.
- He didn't point out other cons, such as it not having a removable motherboard tray. Didn't even mention it.
- The Switch 810 has thin, flimsy side panels and a very obviously cheap power button that looks like it will break after 2 uses (and it often does - read the Newegg reviews).
- He doesn't mention the fact that there is almost no room between the right side panel and the motherboard tray, making cable management very difficult without bulges in the side panel.
- He doesn't mention the fact that the frame is rivoted together and can't be completely disassembled without serious modding.
The list goes on and on. And I'm not picking on the Switch 810, it's probably the case that I'm going to buy soon despite its flaws. It's still a great case for $170. I'm simply using it as an example of how he will rant and rave about a product in his reviews and say nothing negative at all (you should really watch that review - I've rarely ever seen him act so giddy about a product), and then turn around when asked "off the record", point out a whole host of cons, and then reveal that he hates it. EDIT - here's the review for all you lazy bastards:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tTwXq0MaNY
Linus is allowed to say whatever he wants about the stuff he reviews, or express his own opinions, so I'm not really going to give him too much flak about it, but I will say this: he has industry sponsors, he has personal biases in addition, and he doesn't do honest reviews to begin with regardless of biases or sponsorships. His videos are great if you just want to get a better look at something, but his opinions mean absolutely squat.
Well it's not like you can say he's wrong, he agreed with Logan for what the benchmarks were for. I can't actually believe any of you would even suggest that AMD wins in single thread peformance? It's really only heavy multithreading that the 8350 wins in. I'd buy an 8350 given the option between the 2 seeing as multithreaded applications are becoming more standard and multi tasking is becoming more and more popular with multi monitor setups. But for strictly gaming you guys can't say honestly that the 8350 beats the 3570k.
He did readily dismiss it, lol. After the first question, Slick said something like "Logan said the 8350 beats the 3570k in some things", Linus point blankly and without hesitation said "Oh, well it doesn't. Just to be clear: it doesn't."
Then, later on, Slick says "well he attributed the results to some driver updates", and again, without hesitation, Linus' only response was simply "No.", and then he changes the subject.
I would call that readily dismissing it. Yes, later on in the video (after he got flooded with hate on Twitter), he does say "well ok, MAYBE if you're playing a game AND have 20 other heavily multithreaded applications running in the background, but no one is going to do that anyway. But yes, maybe in that scenario because it has all those cores", which he likely only said just to calm people down.
But then he tries to correct himself later and make AMD look bad again by saying "well it doesn't even actually have 8 cores. It's actually only got 4 cores with, like, 4 other half cores or something", which is untrue and proves that he's not only grasping for ways to make AMD look bad, but he also has no idea what he's talking about. It has 8 true cores - you can look up pictures of the die and clearly see them. He probably got this idea because there are only 4 L2 cache modules and each pair of physical cores shares one module. Each module is however 2MB, so they doubled the cache size (Intel chips have single 1MB L2 cache modules per core) to make up for it.
He's also sponsored by Intel and has yet to show any actual benchmarks or testing of his own to back up his claims, and we're going on 6 weeks later. Logan is the only one here that's actually tested them both and shown his results. Logan is also not sponsored by AMD or Intel, and thus is not obligated to speak in favor of one over the other, or to use one exclusively over the other.
AMD CPU's still can't push SLi and Crossfire properly......
The only lime light Piledriver has, his heavily multithreaded work loads, which are far and few...
If you call around 5 games a win, then you need some serious head sorting.
"AMD CPU's still can't push SLi and Crossfire properly......"
I haven't heard about this. Source? The only thing I know is that it doesn't support PCIe 3.0 (not that it matters), and it doesn't support SLi or Crossfire in x16 more for more than a 2-way configuration - 3-way or more and it drops down to x16 x16 x8.
"The only lime light Piledriver has, his heavily multithreaded work loads, which are far and few..."
But those are the only things where extreme performance matters at all. Single threaded applications are either very old, or don't require a lot of processing power anyway (because if they did, they'd be multithreaded).
"If you call around 5 games a win, then you need some serious head sorting."
5 out of 6 or 7 that were tested. You act as if every game in the world was tested and it only won in 5 of them.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/03/amd_fx8150_multigpu_gameplay_performance_review/8#.UTix2Rwqxkg
"
Conclusion
We've spent a lot of time gaming with the new AMD Bulldozer FX-8150 CPU. We've gamed on a single-GPU Radeon HD 6970 at 1080p, and we've gamed with 2-way and 3-way GeForce GTX 580 SLI at NV Surround resolutions. In a strictly single-GPU situation, at an average sized single-display, the performance of each CPU in gaming will vary depending on the workload of the game. For the most part, you probably won't notice a difference between an AMD FX-8150 or Intel i5 2500K with a single-GPU at 1080p. There might be those handful of games, however, where the CPU dependent nature of the game will yield a better result with the Intel i5 or i7.
If you are running dual-GPUs, such as 2-way SLI, this again will be dependent on the game, but also the resolution. There are several games that show some major differences between the CPUs, even with 2-way SLI, such as ARMA 2, Crysis Warhead and Civilization V. On the other hand there are games that do not,DiRT 3, Dragon Age 2, Metro 2033.
What is very clear though, is that with 3-way SLI, performance was continually better, and noticeable to a large degree, with the Intel 2500K CPU. It seemed to us that the AMD FX-8150 CPU was holding back the performance of 3-way SLI. We've certainly seen this scenario before. When we upgraded from an Intel i7 920 to the i7 2600K, we saw performance increase by as much as 40% with the new CPU with 3-way SLI. It is therefore no surprise that we are seeing performance vary so much and yield better results with the Intel 2500K.
The 2500K only has 4 threads/cores, while the FX-8150 has 8, yet it is certainly not core count holding back performance in games. There was a 200MHz difference between the CPUs, but that just can't account for the level of difference we are seeing here. There are core (forgive the pun) differences between Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge that are just too far and wide apart, and it is clear Sandy Bridge is the better performer.
The Bottom Line
In every game we played so far between the AMD FX-8150 and Intel 2500K, not once did the AMD FX-8150 come out on top with a dual or triple-GPU configuration. Even when performance was "similar," the Intel CPU still held a certain percentage of performance advantage, over the AMD CPU. Given these results, we saw no need to include the i7 2600K. When we look at pricing, things all start to fall in place. Currently, the Intel i5 2500K can be had for $214.99 online. The AMD FX-8150 is currently more expensive at $279.99 online. That extra $65 will get you twice the cores, but it won't make up for Bulldozers low gameplay performance. Save your money, get an Intel i5 and overclock it for a better experience.
All of our gameplay testing has brought us to this single conclusion, if you are serious about gaming on the PC, and or you have a dual-GPU or better configuration, you will simply have a better gameplay experience with an Intel i5 or i7 CPU. Currently, when it comes to Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge, Intel simply has the better platform for high-end gaming."
Recon-UK... You can put your last comment up your ass! Thats Bulldozer, not Piledriver/Vishera!
That is ancient history, try to find FX 8350 and not FX 8150 you retard, I cant believe that you have enough guts to go full retard quoting something that is 1 or almost 2 years old. A fact that is not valid since the Q3/Q4 of 2012 when AMD Piledriver - Vishera FX got released and fixed most or all problems that AMD Bulldozer - Zambezi FX ever had and you now fail in suprising but epical way like Narcis himself drowing up in a lake like a fool with your rageaholic behaviour and becoming a biased fuck that nobody wants or gives a fuck about you since the time of Trinity...
You keep: Bulldozer sucks, i5 rocks...
Dude, be realistic... Bulldozer was released before Piledriver, about a year before it if I am correct... Piledriver fixed most issues.
So that means that your point is not valid for Piledriver you incredibly retarded son of a beach you most likely trollin biased fuck!
I think everyone here knows the 81xx series sucks, we're talking about the 83xx series (piledriver/vishera and not bulldozer/zambezi).
What?
So 10% increase in IPC from Piledriver will improve it that much? LOL......
I am not the fanboy here pal, you are.
Never said anything like what you just posted.
Piledriver:
http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-core-i7-3770k--4.8ghz--multi-gpu-gaming-performance/17494.html
Recon-UK, that was almost half a year ago... Find more recent test with latest drivers possible, then we can fully aproove your claim, since you got dissapointed by results from Bulldozer you keep bitchin about it and trash it while its Piledriver was released in Q4 of 2012, recently.