Jump to content

Anandtech's Initial remarks about their unusual Ryzen 2 benchmarks

Lathlaer

This is from Anandtech site itself.

 

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12678/a-timely-discovery-examining-amd-2nd-gen-ryzen-results

 

For anyone who did not follow - there was a slight controversy regarding Anandtech's initial Ryzen 2 review and benchmarks because their results differed substantially from those of other tech channels. In short, their Ryzen 2 gaming benchmarks destroyed the i7 8700k which was surprising since many expected some performance gains but definitely not beyond Intel's mainstream gaming CPU's.

 

Due to the tight deadline of our testing and results, we pushed both our CPU and gaming tests live without as much formal analysis as we typically like to do. All the parts were competitive, however it quickly became clear that some of our results were not aligned with those from other media. Initially we were under the impression that this was as a result of the Spectre and Meltdown (or Smeltdown) updates, as we were one of the few media outlets to go back and perform retesting under the new standard.

 

Now, the exact effect of "Smeltdown" patches is rather unclear since many sources did not notice any meaningful performance drop in gaming, but still - it was the hot new thing that supposedly affected Intel's CPU's the most and thus it was a likely conclusion that if any discrepancies appeared, they need to be attributed to the new patch.

 

Their conclusion was a bit surprising and - to my understanding - had nothing to do with the Smeltdown patch. Or rather, if the patch affected gaming performance, it was rather minimal in comparison to the main culprit: HPET (or High Precision Event Timer).

 

What our testing identified is that the source of the issue is actually down to timers. Windows uses timers for many things, such as synchronization or ensuring linearity, and there are sets of software relating to monitoring and overclocking that require the timer with the most granularity - specifically they often require the High Precision Event Timer (HPET). HPET is very important, especially when it comes to determining if 'one second' of PC time is the equivalent to 'one second' of real-world time - the way that Windows 8 and Windows 10 implements their timing strategy, compared to Windows 7, means that in rare circumstances the system time can be liable to clock shift over time.

 

The problem is that, apparently, forcing HPET can yield substantial performance losses, particularly in gaming. It's not clear how much since it all varies from system to system, but apparently Intel is affected more than AMD:

 

8700KGPU_575px.png

 

 

Just look at this. Some of those numbers are crazy - turning HPET to default yielded them a whooping 45%-76% performance boost in Raise of the Tomb Raider in 1080p. 

 

Finally what this means for the review:

 

GamingResults_575px.png

 

As you can see, the i7 8700k remains the winner in gaming scenarios most of the time which would be consistent with what other channels report. 

 

Anandtech also decided to pull their initial results from the Ryzen 2 review. 

 

As a result we are retracting our existing results for all of the processors we used in the Ryzen 2000-series review. This goes for both the review and for Bench. All of these products will be updated with revised results using the default HPET behavior just as soon as the updated data is available over the course of the next week. In fact we're already the process of running this updated testing, which we've used for this article and uploaded to Bench.

 

My thoughts:

 

It is important to note that this is not Anandtech's fault. Their benchmarking algorythm always depended on HPET being forced since Intel has never advised to leave it at default. Contrary to AMD who during the premiere of Ryzen 1 specifically touched the subject and advised to leave it at default. As it happens, now the HPET status makes a bigger difference for Intel CPU's than AMD's,

 

Anandtech is a very professional site but this is a prime example of why people should take any reviews with a grain of salt and compare to multiple sources, as even the most technical sites can discover some previously unknown factors.

 

This is my first news article, so if anything is not up to standard, please forgive me.

 

 

 

CPU: i7 6950X  |  Motherboard: Asus Rampage V ed. 10  |  RAM: 32 GB Corsair Dominator Platinum Special Edition 3200 MHz (CL14)  |  GPUs: 2x Asus GTX 1080ti SLI 

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1 TB M.2 NVME  |  PSU: In Win SIV 1065W 

Cooling: Custom LC 2 x 360mm EK Radiators | EK D5 Pump | EK 250 Reservoir | EK RVE10 Monoblock | EK GPU Blocks & Backplates | Alphacool Fittings & Connectors | Alphacool Glass Tubing

Case: In Win Tou 2.0  |  Display: Alienware AW3418DW  |  Sound: Woo Audio WA8 Eclipse + Focal Utopia Headphones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Highly informative, well sourced and articulated.

 

On a side note, the gap between Intel and Ryzen seems to be closing even further. Hopefully both companies will continue to innovate and bring their best cards to the table. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

It is important to note that this is not Anandtech's fault.

They also did mention in the original article and in the comment section that the results looked strange, AMD quoted a 3% IPC increase and a total increase of ~10% so Ryzen+ was never going to beat the i7 8700K.

Just now, Deus Voltage said:

Highly informative, well sourced and articulated.

 

On a side note, the gap between Intel and Ryzen seems to be closing even further. Hopefully both companies will continue to innovate and bring their best cards to the table. 

Given we saw a 7-10% IPC increase in a minor architecture update we can look forward to seeing AMD and Intel being on par or AMD taking the lead for the first time in 12 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ScratchCat said:

Given we saw a 7-10% IPC increase in a minor architecture update we can look forward to seeing AMD and Intel being on par or AMD taking the lead for the first time in 12 years.

Amen. Healthy competition is always good for the consumer. Unfortunately, I wish I could say the same about internet providers in the US, but I digress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is their fault, they pushed the article out to get advertising money. No one else, other than highly biased fanboy sites, came even close to their findings. 

 

They abused their responsibility. 

If anyone asks you never saw me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks it was taking too long for them to fix their mistake, those wrong benchmark charts were being too missleading already here in the forum as people were forcing Ryzen 7 2700x down the throat to people only wanting high refresh rate gaming computers where their budget allowed the i7 which made better sense.

Personal Desktop":

CPU: Intel Core i7 10700K @5ghz |~| Cooling: bq! Dark Rock Pro 4 |~| MOBO: Gigabyte Z490UD ATX|~| RAM: 16gb DDR4 3333mhzCL16 G.Skill Trident Z |~| GPU: RX 6900XT Sapphire Nitro+ |~| PSU: Corsair TX650M 80Plus Gold |~| Boot:  SSD WD Green M.2 2280 240GB |~| Storage: 1x3TB HDD 7200rpm Seagate Barracuda + SanDisk Ultra 3D 1TB |~| Case: Fractal Design Meshify C Mini |~| Display: Toshiba UL7A 4K/60hz |~| OS: Windows 10 Pro.

Luna, the temporary Desktop:

CPU: AMD R9 7950XT  |~| Cooling: bq! Dark Rock 4 Pro |~| MOBO: Gigabyte Aorus Master |~| RAM: 32G Kingston HyperX |~| GPU: AMD Radeon RX 7900XTX (Reference) |~| PSU: Corsair HX1000 80+ Platinum |~| Windows Boot Drive: 2x 512GB (1TB total) Plextor SATA SSD (RAID0 volume) |~| Linux Boot Drive: 500GB Kingston A2000 |~| Storage: 4TB WD Black HDD |~| Case: Cooler Master Silencio S600 |~| Display 1 (leftmost): Eizo (unknown model) 1920x1080 IPS @ 60Hz|~| Display 2 (center): BenQ ZOWIE XL2540 1920x1080 TN @ 240Hz |~| Display 3 (rightmost): Wacom Cintiq Pro 24 3840x2160 IPS @ 60Hz 10-bit |~| OS: Windows 10 Pro (games / art) + Linux (distro: NixOS; programming and daily driver)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, VegetableStu said:

.

What's your point? Every body does it for advertising money, the difference is being right about it or not before pushing it to the media.

Personal Desktop":

CPU: Intel Core i7 10700K @5ghz |~| Cooling: bq! Dark Rock Pro 4 |~| MOBO: Gigabyte Z490UD ATX|~| RAM: 16gb DDR4 3333mhzCL16 G.Skill Trident Z |~| GPU: RX 6900XT Sapphire Nitro+ |~| PSU: Corsair TX650M 80Plus Gold |~| Boot:  SSD WD Green M.2 2280 240GB |~| Storage: 1x3TB HDD 7200rpm Seagate Barracuda + SanDisk Ultra 3D 1TB |~| Case: Fractal Design Meshify C Mini |~| Display: Toshiba UL7A 4K/60hz |~| OS: Windows 10 Pro.

Luna, the temporary Desktop:

CPU: AMD R9 7950XT  |~| Cooling: bq! Dark Rock 4 Pro |~| MOBO: Gigabyte Aorus Master |~| RAM: 32G Kingston HyperX |~| GPU: AMD Radeon RX 7900XTX (Reference) |~| PSU: Corsair HX1000 80+ Platinum |~| Windows Boot Drive: 2x 512GB (1TB total) Plextor SATA SSD (RAID0 volume) |~| Linux Boot Drive: 500GB Kingston A2000 |~| Storage: 4TB WD Black HDD |~| Case: Cooler Master Silencio S600 |~| Display 1 (leftmost): Eizo (unknown model) 1920x1080 IPS @ 60Hz|~| Display 2 (center): BenQ ZOWIE XL2540 1920x1080 TN @ 240Hz |~| Display 3 (rightmost): Wacom Cintiq Pro 24 3840x2160 IPS @ 60Hz 10-bit |~| OS: Windows 10 Pro (games / art) + Linux (distro: NixOS; programming and daily driver)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, VegetableStu said:

uhh...

UHH...

Everyone is out for those advertising dollar, but Steve at Gamers Nexus understands his responsibity, and does a sanity check if results are outside expectation.

 

You're saying Anandtech has no one they can talk to, compare results? That's silly. They chose to run with the results. 

If anyone asks you never saw me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, App4that said:

You're saying Anandtech has no one they can talk to, compare results? That's silly. They chose to run with the results. 

Well they definitely did not have the hindsight that we have. To be fair Intel said that they suggest having HPET forced so I wouldn't be surprised if Intel themselves didn't know that it could hurt their benchmark.

 

The main culprit is, I think, the Spectre/Meltdown patch. Not the patch itself but the knowledge of it's existence and potential effects. They were aware of the difference between their and others' results but they were also very confident in their application of latest BIOS versions and Windows patches. That probably led them to believe that those results are acceptable when other media either did not specify their application of those patches or brushed over them enigmatically.

 

Turns out they were not right ;-)

 

I would not attribute them any malicious intent, they acknowledge the mistake, they put disclaimers in their article almost right away and then they chose to rectify the situation.

 

All is good for me as long as people remember that even the biggest and most acknowledged sources can make mistakes.

CPU: i7 6950X  |  Motherboard: Asus Rampage V ed. 10  |  RAM: 32 GB Corsair Dominator Platinum Special Edition 3200 MHz (CL14)  |  GPUs: 2x Asus GTX 1080ti SLI 

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1 TB M.2 NVME  |  PSU: In Win SIV 1065W 

Cooling: Custom LC 2 x 360mm EK Radiators | EK D5 Pump | EK 250 Reservoir | EK RVE10 Monoblock | EK GPU Blocks & Backplates | Alphacool Fittings & Connectors | Alphacool Glass Tubing

Case: In Win Tou 2.0  |  Display: Alienware AW3418DW  |  Sound: Woo Audio WA8 Eclipse + Focal Utopia Headphones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, App4that said:

It is their fault, they pushed the article out to get advertising money. No one else, other than highly biased fanboy sites, came even close to their findings. 

 

They abused their responsibility. 

Who?

if you want to annoy me, then join my teamspeak server ts.benja.cc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Thanks it was taking too long for them to fix their mistake

To be fair, when you are cought in a potential mistake in such manner, you take all the time you need to quadruple check everything because otherwise if you make another mistake in your update, it's double the embarassement ;-)

CPU: i7 6950X  |  Motherboard: Asus Rampage V ed. 10  |  RAM: 32 GB Corsair Dominator Platinum Special Edition 3200 MHz (CL14)  |  GPUs: 2x Asus GTX 1080ti SLI 

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1 TB M.2 NVME  |  PSU: In Win SIV 1065W 

Cooling: Custom LC 2 x 360mm EK Radiators | EK D5 Pump | EK 250 Reservoir | EK RVE10 Monoblock | EK GPU Blocks & Backplates | Alphacool Fittings & Connectors | Alphacool Glass Tubing

Case: In Win Tou 2.0  |  Display: Alienware AW3418DW  |  Sound: Woo Audio WA8 Eclipse + Focal Utopia Headphones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Benjamins said:

Who?

Anandtech

 

1 minute ago, VegetableStu said:

not many online outlets retract inaccuracies or method errors after publishing

Not many are used as one of the most reliable sources of information either... they have a reputation and retracting was pretty much a demand to keep this reputation high and clean... reason why they are so big, they get more of those sweet advertising dollars because they are serious... if they start spilling out dead wrong numbers they only have to lose in the long run.

Personal Desktop":

CPU: Intel Core i7 10700K @5ghz |~| Cooling: bq! Dark Rock Pro 4 |~| MOBO: Gigabyte Z490UD ATX|~| RAM: 16gb DDR4 3333mhzCL16 G.Skill Trident Z |~| GPU: RX 6900XT Sapphire Nitro+ |~| PSU: Corsair TX650M 80Plus Gold |~| Boot:  SSD WD Green M.2 2280 240GB |~| Storage: 1x3TB HDD 7200rpm Seagate Barracuda + SanDisk Ultra 3D 1TB |~| Case: Fractal Design Meshify C Mini |~| Display: Toshiba UL7A 4K/60hz |~| OS: Windows 10 Pro.

Luna, the temporary Desktop:

CPU: AMD R9 7950XT  |~| Cooling: bq! Dark Rock 4 Pro |~| MOBO: Gigabyte Aorus Master |~| RAM: 32G Kingston HyperX |~| GPU: AMD Radeon RX 7900XTX (Reference) |~| PSU: Corsair HX1000 80+ Platinum |~| Windows Boot Drive: 2x 512GB (1TB total) Plextor SATA SSD (RAID0 volume) |~| Linux Boot Drive: 500GB Kingston A2000 |~| Storage: 4TB WD Black HDD |~| Case: Cooler Master Silencio S600 |~| Display 1 (leftmost): Eizo (unknown model) 1920x1080 IPS @ 60Hz|~| Display 2 (center): BenQ ZOWIE XL2540 1920x1080 TN @ 240Hz |~| Display 3 (rightmost): Wacom Cintiq Pro 24 3840x2160 IPS @ 60Hz 10-bit |~| OS: Windows 10 Pro (games / art) + Linux (distro: NixOS; programming and daily driver)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

wait, I'm confused. should they have stood by their first numbers or not? I meant they should correct their report (as per OP they did) o_o

They should have delayed their release since common sense dictates that no way a Ryzen 7 2700 was going to leave the i7 8700k on the dust in high refresh gaming, it was too obvious something was wrong in the first place... better lose some advertising money releasing their review 1 ~ 2 days later than risk damaging their "impeccable" reputation.

Personal Desktop":

CPU: Intel Core i7 10700K @5ghz |~| Cooling: bq! Dark Rock Pro 4 |~| MOBO: Gigabyte Z490UD ATX|~| RAM: 16gb DDR4 3333mhzCL16 G.Skill Trident Z |~| GPU: RX 6900XT Sapphire Nitro+ |~| PSU: Corsair TX650M 80Plus Gold |~| Boot:  SSD WD Green M.2 2280 240GB |~| Storage: 1x3TB HDD 7200rpm Seagate Barracuda + SanDisk Ultra 3D 1TB |~| Case: Fractal Design Meshify C Mini |~| Display: Toshiba UL7A 4K/60hz |~| OS: Windows 10 Pro.

Luna, the temporary Desktop:

CPU: AMD R9 7950XT  |~| Cooling: bq! Dark Rock 4 Pro |~| MOBO: Gigabyte Aorus Master |~| RAM: 32G Kingston HyperX |~| GPU: AMD Radeon RX 7900XTX (Reference) |~| PSU: Corsair HX1000 80+ Platinum |~| Windows Boot Drive: 2x 512GB (1TB total) Plextor SATA SSD (RAID0 volume) |~| Linux Boot Drive: 500GB Kingston A2000 |~| Storage: 4TB WD Black HDD |~| Case: Cooler Master Silencio S600 |~| Display 1 (leftmost): Eizo (unknown model) 1920x1080 IPS @ 60Hz|~| Display 2 (center): BenQ ZOWIE XL2540 1920x1080 TN @ 240Hz |~| Display 3 (rightmost): Wacom Cintiq Pro 24 3840x2160 IPS @ 60Hz 10-bit |~| OS: Windows 10 Pro (games / art) + Linux (distro: NixOS; programming and daily driver)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, App4that said:

It is their fault, they pushed the article out to get advertising money. No one else, other than highly biased fanboy sites, came even close to their findings. 

 

They abused their responsibility. 

Given their reputation, I highly doubt they would pull a stunt like that with that intent because it would enormously impact their credibility among the space. The reviewers are given very little time to deal with issues like this and the competition to release a review in a timely manner evidently outweighed holding the review. The numbers aren't wrong per se, but at the time were misleading without the information about HEDT. They pulled the results and now it's out there so I don't see what the problem is. There are much better publications to bash over their disregard for honest journalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lathlaer said:

 

 

All is good for me as long as people remember that even the biggest and most acknowledged sources can make mistakes.

I gained 2fps with the Spectre/meltdown patch, Hardware Unboxed showed no difference in thier testing. Anandtech knwe it wasn't the patch.

 

There is harm done, people argue with false data. That's on Anandtech. Who knew they were wrong to publish. 

If anyone asks you never saw me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Princess Cadence said:

They should have delayed their release since common sense dictates that no way a Ryzen 7 2700 was going to leave the i7 8700k on the dust in high refresh gaming, it was too obvious something was wrong in the first place... better lose some advertising money releasing their review 1 ~ 2 days later than risk damaging their "impeccable" reputation.

I agree with this. 

 

Their reputation is so impeccable that depending on whom (and where) you ask, people were inclined to think that they were the only site that got the Ryzen 2 review and benchmarks right. People were actually arguing that every single other channel got it wrong and everyone attributed it to the Smeltdown patch. This resulted in some heated discussions and dubious CPU recommendations.

CPU: i7 6950X  |  Motherboard: Asus Rampage V ed. 10  |  RAM: 32 GB Corsair Dominator Platinum Special Edition 3200 MHz (CL14)  |  GPUs: 2x Asus GTX 1080ti SLI 

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1 TB M.2 NVME  |  PSU: In Win SIV 1065W 

Cooling: Custom LC 2 x 360mm EK Radiators | EK D5 Pump | EK 250 Reservoir | EK RVE10 Monoblock | EK GPU Blocks & Backplates | Alphacool Fittings & Connectors | Alphacool Glass Tubing

Case: In Win Tou 2.0  |  Display: Alienware AW3418DW  |  Sound: Woo Audio WA8 Eclipse + Focal Utopia Headphones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

This highlights an Intel problem. The results weren't inaccurate as such or misleading. Some will run software that forces HPET and they'll experience this. It would be another matter if it was an obscure setting no one would encounter. Up to 70% performance differences are absolutely insane. It seems a combination of security patches and Intel having a particularly sensitive HPET implementation is the culprit.

 

I don't buy the whole "Anandtech is wrong"-angle. If anything, they've done us a service by revealing and investigating a problem of this magnitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

This highlights an Intel problem. The results weren't inaccurate as such or misleading. Some will run software that forces HPET and they'll experience this. It would be another matter if it was an obscure setting no one would encounter. Up to 70% performance differences are absolutely insane. It seems a combination of security patches and Intel having a particularly sensitive HPET implementation is the culprit.

 

I don't buy the whole "Anandtech is wrong"-angle. If anything, they've done us a service by revealing and investigating a problem of this magnitude.

You're telling me, a major tech media source had no idea a 2700X with a much lower single core score, shouldn't beat a 8700k that has a much higher single core score in gaming?

 

IF Anandtech had reached out to other reviewers to check their findings, and other reviewers had the same issue, Anandtech isn't to blame.

 

Anandtech was the ONLY one to have this issue, Anandtech WANTED these findings, and when presented with them published. 

 

Anandtech and other biased news sources are why people argue the way they do about hardware. We have competition, which is good. AMD for uncomprimized workstations, Intel for uncomprimized gaming. Anandtech took it apon themselves to make that not good enough. 

If anyone asks you never saw me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing worth mentioning is the memory used...

They used G.Skill SniperX DDR4-2933 on the Ryzen 2nd gen. But they used Crucial Ballistix DDR4-2666 on coffee Lake and G.Skill RipjawsV DDR4-2400 on coffee Lake.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600/8

 

Doesn't account for most of the variation, but still worth mentioning as it will cost a couple of fps difference. Most review sites use the same RAM kit at the same speed across platforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, App4that said:

It is their fault, they pushed the article out to get advertising money. No one else, other than highly biased fanboy sites, came even close to their findings. 

All sources officially working with AMD has the same problem, in that AMD sends them the samples with limited time to do the testing and write up. Gamers Nexus did not take the AMD route, and managed to source it through their other contacts ahead of time, so they had more time to dive deeper. Out of respect for the community, GN held back on their results to coincide with the rest of the tech media, but that also gave them more time to do more things.

48 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Thanks it was taking too long for them to fix their mistake, those wrong benchmark charts were being too missleading already here in the forum as people were forcing Ryzen 7 2700x down the throat to people only wanting high refresh rate gaming computers where their budget allowed the i7 which made better sense.

Once you are aware you're getting different results, the difficulty then is finding what it is. Would changing the HPET setting be the first thing on your mind? There was probably a lot of trial and error, with various variables before they found a suspect, more testing to confirm it, and then to write it up.

26 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

wait, I'm confused. should they have stood by their first numbers or not? I meant they should correct their report (as per OP they did) o_o

Personally, I'd rather have BOTH sets of data. It exists. I dabble with competitive benchmarking, so I tend to leave HPET enabled on my systems as it is a general requirement for many benchmarks. It would be interesting to know the performance impact of that, and if I might need to change the setting for other objectives.

 

Still, they need to cover the "typical" configuration most users would use it in.

6 minutes ago, Humbug said:

Another thing worth mentioning is the memory used...

They used G.Skill SniperX DDR4-2933 on the Ryzen 2nd gen. But they used Crucial Ballistix DDR4-2666 on coffee Lake and G.Skill RipjawsV DDR4-2400 on coffee Lake.

 

Doesn't account for most of the variation, but still worth mentioning. Most review sites use the same RAM kit across platforms.

Not 100% sure but I think they said they used ram of the fastest officially supported speed on the platform. Depending on the mobo bios, running high speed rated ram at lower speeds does not lead to optimal timings, so arguably a native kit means you have a better chance of getting something representative.

Main system: i9-7980XE, Asus X299 TUF mark 2, Noctua D15, Corsair Vengeance Pro 3200 3x 16GB 2R, RTX 3070, NZXT E850, GameMax Abyss, Samsung 980 Pro 2TB, Acer Predator XB241YU 24" 1440p 144Hz G-Sync + HP LP2475w 24" 1200p 60Hz wide gamut
Gaming laptop: Lenovo Legion 5, 5800H, RTX 3070, Kingston DDR4 3200C22 2x16GB 2Rx8, Kingston Fury Renegade 1TB + Crucial P1 1TB SSD, 165 Hz IPS 1080p G-Sync Compatible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, porina said:

All sources officially working with AMD has the same problem, in that AMD sends them the samples with limited time to do the testing and write up. Gamers Nexus did not take the AMD route, and managed to source it through their other contacts ahead of time, so they had more time to dive deeper. Out of respect for the community, GN held back on their results to coincide with the rest of the tech media, but that also gave them more time to do more things.

That's why I feel as strongly as I do, everyone knew that. Well, anyone who watches GN that is, which should include Anandtech. All it would have taken was an email and Anandtech would have known their findings were off, as GN was already done. 

If anyone asks you never saw me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

wait so why was HPET set to forced in their tests in the first place?

shouldn't it have been "default"?

"If a Lobster is a fish because it moves by jumping, then a kangaroo is a bird" - Admiral Paulo de Castro Moreira da Silva

"There is nothing more difficult than fixing something that isn't all the way broken yet." - Author Unknown

Spoiler

Intel Core i7-3960X @ 4.6 GHz - Asus P9X79WS/IPMI - 12GB DDR3-1600 quad-channel - EVGA GTX 1080ti SC - Fractal Design Define R5 - 500GB Crucial MX200 - NH-D15 - Logitech G710+ - Mionix Naos 7000 - Sennheiser PC350 w/Topping VX-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, porina said:

Not 100% sure but I think they said they used ram of the fastest officially supported speed on the platform.

This is true. Yes they had reason for their methodology.

I am just saying it has to be taken into account, when we consider why their results are different from other tests, it is a small factor accounting for a few fps...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, App4that said:

You're telling me, a major tech media source had no idea a 2700X with a much lower single core score, shouldn't beat a 8700k that has a much higher single core score in gaming?

 

IF Anandtech had reached out to other reviewers to check their findings, and other reviewers had the same issue, Anandtech isn't to blame.

 

Anandtech was the ONLY one to have this issue, Anandtech WANTED these findings, and when presented with them published. 

 

Anandtech and other biased news sources are why people argue the way they do about hardware. We have competition, which is good. AMD for uncomprimized workstations, Intel for uncomprimized gaming. Anandtech took it apon themselves to make that not good enough. 

They've published their results. Results that are reproducible. They're not wrong but they may not be representative either. Anandtech should not withhold benchmarks because they subjectively dislike the results.

 

I'm sure Ian was far too busy to collude with other reviewers to get the "right" results that you desire. I laugh at the notion of Anandtech being biased. They're practically one of the few who does deep dives. You certainly have a preconceived notion of how things should be and what reviewer does what.

 

I'm sure Anandtech has conspired for several years to make Intel look like the only game in town until 2017. That makes sense. 

 

Sarcasm aside. Intel has issues with HPET and they need to address that. Their engineers seem to be unaware since they didn't tell reviewers to disable it - in fact they were indifferent to whatever settings reviewers use.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, bcredeur97 said:

wait so why was HPET set to forced in their tests in the first place?

shouldn't it have been "default"?

Quoting the article:

 

Quote

Based on my extreme overclocking roots back in the day, my automated benchmark scripts for the past year or so have forced HPET through the OS. Given that AMD’s guidance is now that it doesn’t matter for performance, and Intel hasn’t even mentioned the issue relating to a CPU review, having HPET enabled was the immediate way to ensure that every benchmark result was consistent, and would not be interfered with by clock drift on special motherboard manufacturer in-OS tweaks. This was a fundamental part of my overclocking roots – if I want to test a CPU, I want to make certainly sure that the motherboard is not causing any issues. It really gets up my nose when after a series of CPU testing, it turns out that the motherboard had an issue – keeping HPET on was designed to stop any timing issues should they arise.

 

From our results over that time, if HPET was having any effect, it was unnoticed: our results were broadly similar to others, and each of the products fell in line with where they were expected. Over the several review cycles we had, there were a couple of issues that cropped up that we couldn’t explain, such as our Skylake-X gaming numbers that were low, or the first batch of Ryzen gaming tests, where the data was thrown out for being obviously wrong however we never managed to narrow down the issue.

Basically goes back to Ian's overclocking roots and trying to ensure that individual motherboards are not creating an issue...  Definitely encourage reading the whole article as there are a lot of details discussed that may not be considered.  It would also be relevant to consider this issue when looking at other reviewers results, especially if a reviewer has an OC software that they've run on the system as that may have forced HPET on the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×