AMD Releases NEW Ryzen Embedded CPUs today. "3X performance per watt..."

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Trixanity said:

So because the title included a buzz word it would turn things on its head again? I'll use the Tesla analogy again: "Tesla launches new car with 3x range" vs "Tesla launches new semi truck with x3 range". It changes the understanding of the title completely. Doesn't matter what the configuration is. Even included a 3x buzz word for your viewing pleasure.

Exactly how does embedded change it in a way you are saying it does? APU does so much more.

 

The problem with your argument is embedded just doesn't do what you are wanting it to do, because like I pointed out there are just so, so many embedded products it could be anything. It could have been a Tesla embedded truck or an embedded car.

 

If we were talking about "3X performance per watt", the real bait, then I'd likely see much more compelling arguments for that. I just don't see how it's such a big deal when it's not actually a lie or even misleading, I'd classify it as exploitative.

 

I'm just actually dumbfounded anyone has such a problem with it like you're making out.

 

Edit:

I can understand a few quips and jokes about the title and people being disappointed but like actual page(s) of people complaining about it, really? It's actually that bad? Even with a title such as "New Ryzen Embedded APUs launched" there was bound to be comments from people disappointed it wasn't a Zen2 announcement. So to me it just feels more like hypersensitivity, because sure clickbait in general is a large problem but I personally am not a big consumer of online content so while I know it exists I don't care that it exists.

 

P.S Sorry for the multiple edits, far to late for this.

[yolosnail]

Right, let's break down the original title.

AMD - yes, AMD are indeed a company

Releases - and they have released something

NEW - that something is indeed new

Ryzen - and it happens to be a Ryzen branded product 

CPUs - okay, this one is debatable, but an APU does contain a CPU so I'll let it slide

Today - it was correct at time of posting

3X performance per watt - is what AMD have claimed, so many salts are required, but one would assume that they at least have some 'evidence' to back it up

 

All in all, the title is not clickbait, but not in the way you want it to be. In fact, let's break down clickbait. It's bait which is designed to make you click.

Bait - 'something intended to entice someone to do something'

Click - I think that one is pretty self explanatory

Nowhere does it say it has to be misleading. 

In fact, a title by its very definition is supposed to be clickbait!

 

In fact, I bet the people that complained its clickbait would be the same people to complain that there's too much information in the title!

[mr moose]

So you say:

9 hours ago, Trixanity said:

Not worked up at all.

 

Then you go on to post all this:

9 hours ago, Trixanity said:

Clickbait is accurate quite frequently (no data on it but I'd wager more often than not is it perfectly accurate). I've told you this multiple times in fact - odd given that you recently accused someone of having absolutely no reading comprehension. You should work on that.

 

You don't have to lie in order to get clicks. Just obfuscate a little bit or put emphasis (or lack thereof) on certain key points. It often results in the reader having to click on it if they want to know what it's actually about. Not all clickbait is titties or titles in all capitals. Not all of it is "you won't believe what doctors are doing". Sometimes it's just a few words like "Florida man shot while fighting an alligator" vs "Florida man survives being shot while fighting an alligator". In the first instance we don't know whether the man survived or not but it's a key piece of information. It changes the way we read the headline and we might still want to know why he was fighting the alligator and why he was shot to begin with. Some might be satisfied with knowing the outcome just from glancing at the headline. You leave out that choice if you give a pass regardless of severity or size of the alleged hack job on the title. It's a growing problem in the advertisement-fueled news cycle. Better to eliminate it completely while we still can.

 

The rationality is there (in fact despite the facetious nature of my posts I'd wager I've presented more reasoning than you have but is that anything new?) but differing viewpoints on what constitutes a reasonable news post is what is cause for this alleged upset. I don't know why you're always upset that people would have the gall to have a different opinion. It's just banter, mate. 

 

Like it's nothing, but you clearly have an issue with it.

 

 

 

9 hours ago, Trixanity said:

Anyway. I think my work here is done. 

What is that supposed to even mean? do you think you have done something?

[Trixanity]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

So you say:

 

Then you go on to post all this:

 

Like it's nothing, but you clearly have an issue with it.

 

 

 

What is that supposed to even mean? do you think you have done something?

Ah, yes. Posting on a forum is the act of being worked up. You confuse satirical verbosity for irateness. Otherwise judging by your post count you must be on the edge of self-combustion.

 

Especially considering the usual tone in your posts of which you've nailed the consistency to a point where a German engineer would be proud. Even just your last paragraph. You're basically the personification of denatonium benzoate. 

 

That was my cue to exit

[mr moose]

26 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Ah, yes. Posting on a forum is the act of being worked up. You confuse satirical verbosity for irateness. Otherwise judging by your post count you must be on the edge of self-combustion.

 

I didn't confuse anything, you have not  simple posted on a forum, you have displayed a dedicated attempt to argue an inanely benign attribute as if it was the equivalent of corporate fraud.

 

26 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Especially considering the usual tone in your posts of which you've nailed the consistency to a point where a German engineer would be proud. Even just your last paragraph. You're basically the personification of denatonium benzoate. 

personal attacks are always a golden way to exemplify your argument that you are doing nothing but simply posting on a forum.

 

26 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

That was my cue to exit

Cue to exit?  If you want to exit and let it blow over then I suggest you stop posting.  Because continuing to discuss it is the exact opposite of that.

[The Benjamins]

This thread just gets better and better. :^)

[yolosnail]

28 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

This thread just gets better and better. :^)

I think it's been derailed ever so slightly

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, The Benjamins said:

This thread just gets better and better. :^)

you'll have the first news thread to 100,000 posts, and most of them defending a derailing accusation based on the your choice of words and not the actual topic.

[LAwLz]

It doesn't really matter what definition of "clickbait" you want to follow or whatever. The fact that something like 40 people voiced their opinion that the title was misleading clearly shows that the title was bad for the purpose of informing users what the thread was about. 

 

So I think a better question, and what is actually being debated here, is what the purpose of titles on this forum are. Are they there to:

1) Inform users what the thread is about. 

2) Draw as much attention and clicks to a thread? 

 

The original title was, if you ask me, in the second category. Personally I believe the current title is in category 1, which I prefer.

 

 

Anyway, on topic. 

Would maybe be nice for a server with low CPU performance requirements (like a NAS) but other than that I don't see much use for it, at least not for me. 

[leadeater]

34 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It doesn't really matter what definition of "clickbait" you want to follow or whatever. The fact that something like 40 people voiced their opinion that the title was misleading clearly shows that the title was bad for the purpose of informing users what the thread was about. 

 

So I think a better question, and what is actually being debated here, is what the purpose of titles on this forum are. Are they there to:

1) Inform users what the thread is about. 

2) Draw as much attention and clicks to a thread? 

 

The original title was, if you ask me, in the second category. Personally I believe the current title is in category 1, which I prefer. 

Problem here though is over 90% of the problem was from peoples own assumptions rather than what was actually in the title. While it's true the title was created to exploit those assumptions knowing that would happen it still comes down to those assumptions less than what was actually the title. As for the current title only embedded was added and no one has actually been able to explain how that actually changes things in any significant way. As for the number of people, different people, it's between 12 to 20.

 

The original title was informative and also exploitative, and that is the only thing people can actually discuss? The current title though, only embedded was added which unless everyone has an odd understanding of what that means doesn't actually remove much confusion at all. With a claim like 3 times the performance per watt embedded isn't going to hamper the disappointed that it's only a 2 core APU.

 

I get the feeling everyone knew full well it wasn't a major product reveal, knew it wasn't as good as it sounded before going in to the topic and I find few things as stupid and annoying as fake outrage. You all knew, generalizing here but you're all intelligent and follow the tech press as well as all being personally skilled and knowledgeable in this subject area so I doubt anyone was actually mislead.

 

Edit:

Also topics specifically titled and crafted to get people to click on them is not new, it's been a thing here for years. There's many a topic been named in ways I disagree with but I've never once complained about a title, at least not that I can remember.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Problem here though is over 90% of the problem was from peoples own assumptions rather than what was actually in the title. While it's true the title was created to exploit those assumptions knowing that would happen it still comes down to those assumptions less than what was actually the title. As for the current title only embedded was added and no one has actually been able to explain how that actually changes things in any significant way. As for the number of people, different people, it's between 12 to 20.

 

The original title was informative and also exploitative, and that is the only thing people can actually discuss? The current title though, only embedded was added which unless everyone has an odd understanding of what that means doesn't actually remove much confusion at all. With a claim like 3 times the performance per watt embedded isn't going to hamper the disappointed that it's only a 2 core APU.

 

I get the feeling everyone knew full well it wasn't a major product reveal, knew it wasn't as good as it sounded before going in to the topic and I find few things as stupid and annoying as fake outrage. You all knew, generalizing here but you're all intelligent and follow the tech press as well as all being personally skilled and knowledgeable in this subject area so I doubt anyone was actually mislead.

 

Edit:

Also topics specifically titled and crafted to get people to click on them is not new, it's been a thing here for years. There's many a topic been named in ways I disagree with but I've never once complained about a title, at least not that I can remember.

 

 

People have just forgotten how average and normal things are and expect everything to be exacting to the nth degree with precision descriptions and faultless explanations.   You see it in many threads, if a new proposition or policy isn't perfect then its dumb and shouldn't be a thing, be damned all the other good things it might do.  People really love to cutoff their nose despite their face.