Quote from: arnaud pauwelyn on August 09, 2024, 14:49:34What they are shipping to customer now are low binned chips

Don't think you understand what binning is

Coretecs YouTuber just posted a video where he claims that Those cpus are made of chiplets designed to be part of massive Threadripper and Epic CPU. One design, different usage == more cash.
That's why they favor efficiency so much. Gaming Performance is not really important for their cash flow.
Professional cpu is where the real money is.
What they are shipping to customer now are low binned chips, golden sample will be used for Pros.
They need to sell those before releasing 3d variants.

I don't understand the inconsistency of performance in games... sometimes it shows progress, sometimes regression. What's the bottleneck? Memory latency?

Calling GamersNexus a "news outlet" is a bold one, that's for sure.

Quote from: Worgarthe on August 08, 2024, 16:49:33Interesting how this particular review is the only review out there in direct contrast to all reviews by Hardware Unboxed, Gamers Nexus and such where they all confirmed how the CPU is a waste with very little improvements. It is actually quite often slower than the 7600X but when it's faster that's 1-3%, while costing 40% more and consuming a whopping 3% less.

It's surprising to see how few folks stil do not understand how reviews and news outlets work nowadays.

Quoting news outlets that quotes other news outlets' shody reviews isn't convincing either.

Quote from: usacomputer on August 08, 2024, 17:12:07Who do you think is paying for those negative reviews about AMD? Well, Intel, to divert all attention and create a smokescreen about their processors that burn.

Intel is bribing channels who were shredding that same Intel just a day or two ago, to point out how the 9000 series Ryzens are much more expensive than the prior generation while giving barely any improvements? Lmao.

Then it's Intel behind these results here too, no? Because in this exact review the 9600X is barely faster than the 7600X yet it costs 46% more in the EU (and 41% more in the USA). Intel is paying stores around the world to increase those 9000 prices, just to create a smokescreen about their (Intel's) problems!! 😵

Average Benchmarks AMD Ryzen 5 7600X → 100%
Average Benchmarks AMD Ryzen 5 9600X → 106%

https://www.notebookcheck.net/R5-7600X-vs-Ryzen-5-9600X_14615_17988.247596.0.html

6% faster (but it's more around 1-3% in practice, outside of benchmarks). 46% more expensive. Let that sink in.

Evil Intel...

Who do you think is paying for those negative reviews about AMD? Well, Intel, to divert all attention and create a smokescreen about their processors that burn.
In many specialized forums, no one in their right mind is going to buy an Intel Core 13 and Core 14, and what better way than by diverting attention. To top it off, many insinuate that it is possible that the Core 15 may have the same overheating problems. Nobody is going to buy an Intel chip and everyone is waiting for PANTER-LAKE or will opt for AMD Zen 5 with AM5 that guarantees another 4 years of updates, something that with Intel is only 2 years.

Interesting how this particular review is the only review out there in direct contrast to all reviews by Hardware Unboxed, Gamers Nexus and such where they all confirmed how the CPU is a waste with very little improvements. It is actually quite often slower than the 7600X but when it's faster that's 1-3%, while costing 40% more and consuming a whopping 3% less.