28c Intel W-3175X Reviews; $1700 motherboard?

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Tristerin said:

Tech people hanging off Tech Jesus' nuts BAD.

Actually no, I don't particularly care about GN so you can stop that.

 

I just do not see any misleading information. I don't lose my mind and throw baseless accusations around because of a single extra data point on a graph of a product not being reviewed, answer me this. Would it have not been misleading if the OC power draw result was not put on to the graph?

[Blademaster91]

2 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

At least you know its misleading.

It isn't misleading because as mentioned, GN didn't have the CPU on hand to get a OC'ed Blender result.

[leadeater]

@Tristerin

In fact never mind, I actually don't care what you think. From what you are posting I don't see much value in continuing a discussion. You can't even figure out it's not a review of the 2990WX.

[Lathlaer]

Just now, Tristerin said:

Are you the 6 fingered man?

Is the OC power draw value factually incorrect? IF you can prove that then fine, the information is incorrect.

 

2 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

They included the OC power draw for the pleb to think that the TR needed that much power draw to compete.  When it doesn't.  That's how I see this.  That's how its presented.

This is merely your interpretation. You can't speak to their motives, this is something you thought and are now trying to present your argument to support that hypothesis.

[Tristerin]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Actually no, I don't particularly care about GN so you can stop that.

 

I just do not see any misleading information. I don't lose my mind and throw baseless accusations around because of a single extra data point on a graph of a product not being reviewed, answer me this. Would it have not been misleading if the OC power draw result was not put on to the graph?

Lose my mind...lol

 

Baseless?  LOL

 

Im glad that you agree with me however "because of a single extra data point on a graph of a product not being rewiewed" - the information is skewed because of this.  Which is misleading.  Which is Incorrect.

 

2 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

It isn't misleading because as mentioned, GN didn't have the CPU on hand to get a OC'ed Blender result.

It is misleading.  You don't post graphs without denotions unless you failed to do your job right.  It COULD be a bad presentation.  I could chalk it up to that...but the data was there.

[The Benjamins]

6 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

wonder if he'll do a re-review o_o

Ya idk, but people where talking to him on his discord after the video went up, and he now knows that the 2990wx should be retested.

[Tristerin]

Just now, Lathlaer said:

Is the OC power draw value factually incorrect? IF you can prove that then fine, the information is incorrect.

 

This is merely your interpretation. You can't speak to their motives, this is something you thought and are now trying to present your argument to support that hypothesis.

Wow, you guys are really grasping at straws now.

 

We have to take the graphs at face value?  NO?  Or YES?  Because we are taking them at YES, aren't we?  So that's a pretty stupid question to start with.

 

This is how its presented.  Its presented to show you that an OCd TR is high Power Draw as well as the Intel chip...however there is not results to show you what that Power Draw can do for you.  Misleading, AND incorrect as pareto graphs go.

[Tristerin]

1 minute ago, The Benjamins said:

Ya idk, but people where talking to him on his discord after the video went up, and he now knows that the 2990wx should be retested.

I wish EVERYONE would read THIS .

[Tristerin]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

@Tristerin

In fact never mind, I actually don't care what you think. From what you are posting I don't see much value in continuing a discussion. You can't even figure out it's not a review of the 2990WX.

 

That's cool - because even Tech Jesus knows hes Wrong. 

 

2 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

Ya idk, but people where talking to him on his discord after the video went up, and he now knows that the 2990wx should be retested.

 

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Tristerin said:

Im glad that you agree with me however "because of a single extra data point on a graph of a product not being rewiewed" - the information is skewed because of this.  Which is misleading.  Which is Incorrect.

So the I say it is so it is argument. Explain exactly how it's misdealing. How would one be mislead. I temporary withdraw my not interested because I'm curious as to how you think it's misleading.

[Lathlaer]

Just now, Tristerin said:

Wow, you guys are really grasping at straws now.

It's not grasping at straws because you are using every rhetoric trick you can think of to support your hypothesis that they did it to mislead. You spew words that have no place in this argument in order to strengthen your position.

 

You say misleading, then you say wrong, then incorrect - those have different meaning. 

 

I could argue that what you are doing is misleading because you are using incorrect words to describe what has happened (there is a proper use of "incorrect" for you).

[Tristerin]

Just now, leadeater said:

So the I say it is so it is argument. Explain exactly how it's misdealing. How would one be mislead. I temporary withdraw my not interested because I'm curious as to how you think it's misleading.

Sigh

 

Graph 1, Blender Results, No OC results

Graph 2, Power Draw, OC results

 

If the Graph 1 included Blender results from an OC TR than the information would be relevant.

 

If Graph 2 did not include this OC power draw the information would be correctly presented. 

 

The average person, would skim past this and be mislead.  WHy else do this?  There is zero reason to skew the information.

 

OR it was a mistake. 

[Lathlaer]

1 minute ago, Tristerin said:

That's cool - because even Tech Jesus knows hes Wrong.

You do realise that what they are talking about is entirely different than what you are talking about? Nice try though.

[Tristerin]

1 minute ago, Lathlaer said:

It's not grasping at straws because you are using every rhetoric trick you can think of to support your hypothesis that they did it to mislead. You spew words that have no place in this argument in order to strengthen your position.

 

You say misleading, then you say wrong, then incorrect - those have different meaning. 

 

I could argue that what you are doing is misleading because you are using incorrect words to describe what has happened (there is a proper use of "incorrect" for you).

Wow....wow...wow...

 

Its okay, Even Tech Jesus knows its wrong, and will retest.  Because it doesn't matter that IM right, it matters that Tech Jesus knows its skewed, wrong, and incorrect in its current form.

[Tristerin]

Just now, Lathlaer said:

You do realise that what they are talking about is entirely different than what you are talking about? Nice try though.

No, a complete review of the TR would give us some comparisons he could put in the charts (so that theres a REAL REASON its in the charts)

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

Ya idk, but people where talking to him on his discord after the video went up, and he now knows that the 2990wx should be retested.

He also said that was going to be done at the end of the review in the summary section. The only problem with the retest is that it's going to be done with a 3rd party tool, unless Microsoft patches the issue before hand but that unfortunately is unlikely.

 

Review data using the tool has to be looked at very carefully because it's not actually going to be stock data.

[Lathlaer]

Just now, Tristerin said:

No, a complete review of the TR would give us some comparisons he could put in the charts (so that theres a REAL REASON its in the charts)

What you arguing about and what he found out (or was informed of) are totally different things. I can guarantee you that the retests have nothing to do with the fact that he added an extra OC power draw figure - but hey, he said he will retest so whatever his reason it must mean that you are right! - this is getting ridiculus. 

[Tristerin]

Just now, Lathlaer said:

What you arguing about and what he found out (or was informed of) are totally different things. I can guarantee you that the retests have nothing to do with the fact that he added an extra OC power draw figure - but hey, he said he will retest so whatever his reason it must mean that you are right! - this is getting ridiculus. 

It is ridiculous that its acceptable to post incorrect data and be so supported.  I agree.  At least then we will have ALL the data, not just what he picks and chooses to put in his charts.

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

The average person, would skim past this and be mislead.  WHy else do this?  There is zero reason to skew the information.

How? I see stock performance figures and stock power figure ergo not mislead.

[Tristerin]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

How? I see stock performance figures and stock power figure ergo not mislead.

You, and myself (and some others here) who aren't plebs.

 

Ill cut a new angle, try to see it from your eyes - it doesn't matter to you, that's cool.  The reason I bring it up (and only brought it up, days ago and left this thread alone) was because its true.  They have figures incorrectly pareto'd out.  Which isn't how you do things professionally.  What they did wasn't illegal by any means, this isn't spreadsheets sent to a Board, or Analytical figures for quarter on quarter improvements. 

 

But what they did, from my Data Mining perspective, was commit the egregious error of presenting information that is skewed, misleading, and incorrect (presented incorrectly).  And since they HAD some form of information to give them this number, where is the result on Graph 1 - I would love to see it (even if its in a bad windows build, or whatever reason or not) as then we have as close to Apples to Apples comparison.

 

What if the TR smashes it when OCd and still draws less power?  Or exactly how close IS that delta between the two chips when the TR is OCd - that would give even MORE information on just what this new Intel chip is capable of doing vs all other chips.  Right now the delta isn't far.  So this exactly looks to me, personally, as falsely presented information.  Because the graphs are skewed until this information is pareto'd out appropriately.

 

 

[Tristerin]

Guys, its okay for me to see it this way, just like its okay to see it your way.  Whether we agree doesn't matter - the facts are all that matters - and that is:

 

Threadripper Power Draw for OC is presented.

Threadripper OC Blender results are left off the graphs.

 

Now we need to question why?  Is the why...because it was a mistake?  Is the why...because it torched Intels new chip? 

 

Or is the why because this OCd chip performs worse in Blender (TR) so it wasn't worth putting in the chart (they should add a denotion then to chart 2 and 1) - but we KNOW that isn't the case.

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

You, and myself (and some others here) who aren't plebs.

So what would stop people getting confused if the 2990WX OC results where also in the other graphs? What would stop them using OC performance and stock power?

 

Are you really going with the majority of the GN audience doesn't know how to read graphs nor knows what OC and stock is and are incapable of identifying it?

 

11 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

What if the TR smashes it when OCd and still draws less power?

Well then you can find that out when the 2990WX review comes out, or find out using a different source who has a complete 2990WX review. Until then this is an Intel W-3175X review.

 

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

So a portable grill moonlighting as a CPU

[Fasauceome]

On 2/1/2019 at 7:17 AM, Tristerin said:

You are pulling up a screenshot from a video.  I was specifically talking about the graphs posted, which are graphs posted stand-a-lone on the website

This is also false. The graphs are accompanied by the same review material as the video. Furthermore, the graphs included in the original post are not from the website, they are from the video because you can see the blue progress bars along the sides..

 

Steve is not a shill for Intel, and it's downright insulting that you insinuate that. He said that the performance does not justify the price tag, and the conclusion of his review was not in favor of Intel, where he said it was hard to recommend this CPU to anyone outside of very select groups of consumers. You clearly didn't bother trying to examine his review process or conclusions, because you seem to be under the impression that he said "AMD sux Intel rulz" more or less, which is far from true. He, like Linus, constantly points out that Ryzen has excellent value compared to Intel, and that they make great CPUs for gamers and content producers to buy, suggesting it's a no when talking about the obvious advantages something like the Ryzen 7 1700 had when it came out.

[Tristerin]

7 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

This is also false. The graphs are accompanied by the same review material as the video. Furthermore, the graphs included in the original post are not from the website, they are from the video because you can see the blue progress bars along the sides..

Steve is not a shill for Intel, and it's downright insulting that you insinuate that. He said that the performance does not justify the price tag, and the conclusion of his review was not in favor of Intel, where he said it was hard to recommend this CPU to anyone outside of very select groups of consumers. You clearly didn't bother trying to examine his review process or conclusions, because you seem to be under the impression that he said "AMD sux Intel rulz" more or less, which is far from true. He, like Linus, constantly points out that Ryzen has excellent value compared to Intel, and that they make great CPUs for gamers and content producers to buy, suggesting it's a no when talking about the obvious advantages something like the Ryzen 7 1700 had when it came out.

 

Its amazing that people are taking personal offense "downright insulting" - grow thicker skin bro.  Like...what?  I insinuated in my original post that the graphs are misleading.  If you want me to pick a different word - tell me which to use because its not pareto'd correctly.  I didn't know misleading was such a "power word" triggering people.

 

That isn't what I said once, you just stop and read everything (never insinuated hes a fanboi, I asked why would it be skewed.).  Im not going to argue here - its not presented correctly.  Given its not presented correctly its skewed to look like its favoring Intel.  That's...fact.  Because...its skewed data lol. 

 

Im amazed by this entire thread.