Statistical evidence Intel most likely cherrypicks cpus for reviewers

[DarkSmith2]

Just now, Stefan Payne said:

Intel knows their CPUs better than anyone, so its possible that they don't need no "special testing" for that and are able to run a script and calculate the best of the best, sir.

if it would be that easy they would sell them binned on their own for a much higher price. think before you write

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Do they need to test for it?

Intel knows their CPUs better than anyone, so its possible that they don't need no "special testing" for that and are able to run a script and calculate the best of the best, sir.

 

So no, they don't grab them after production, there is no need for that.

A script? Um no that's not how dies are validated to a spec, special equipment is used for that.

 

This is why I said be specific, VERY specific. How exactly is Intel finding these golden CPUs. Tell me the entire life story of that die from fabrication, validation, packaging and loading on the final microcode, through to getting to a reviewer that makes any logical sense that doesn't significantly impact production output of CPUs or potentially damage thousands of dies to find a few hundred good ones.

 

Sure it makes some kind of sense and there is nothing wrong with assuming reviewers are getting abnormally good samples but realistically no this is not being done. If there was much stronger market competition then maybe it might be worth Intel's effort but the total production output of CPUs now than compared with that 90's, the last time this was done, is exponentially higher with so many more products being targeted.

[Stefan Payne]

16 minutes ago, leadeater said:

A script? Um no that's not how dies are validated to a spec, special equipment is used for that.

No that script would be to see wich ones are the best and mark the CPU as "Special".

Quote

This is why I said be specific, VERY specific. How exactly is Intel finding these golden CPUs. Tell me the entire life story of that die from fabrication, validation, packaging and loading on the final microcode, through to getting to a reviewer that makes any logical sense that doesn't significantly impact production output of CPUs or potentially damage thousands of dies to find a few hundred good ones.

Yes and what do they test?
Do they test things like signal strenth, latency of the important parts and with that calculate how good the CPU is.

 

And with those parameters you can say that only CPUs with certain specifications are send to reviewers.

 

It should also be possible to calculate the maximum stable CPU clock with the parameters Intel has.

And I totally expect every semiconductor manufacturer to keep the Data they have from the production from their CPUs for (defect) research purpose so that they can see if there might be a problem later...

Quote

Sure it makes some kind of sense and there is nothing wrong with assuming reviewers are getting abnormally good samples but realistically no this is not being done. If there was much stronger market competition then maybe it might be worth Intel's effort but the total production output of CPUs now than compared with that 90's, the last time this was done, is exponentially higher with so many more products being targeted.

you assume that golden sampling is a very complicated and expensive Process.

I doubt that and don't think that its overly complicated. And if you know what to do, it should be easy.

 

And also that "5GHz!!!111" Overclock that many people assume for Coffee Lake is also some kind of Marketing...

[DarkSmith2]

Just now, Stefan Payne said:

And also that "5GHz!!!111" Overclock that many people assume for Coffee Lake is also some kind of Marketing...

ofc it is, but they nailed it and thats what it makes it "good marketing".

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

you assume that golden sampling is a very complicated and expensive Process.

I doubt that and don't think that its overly complicated. And if you know what to do, it should be easy.

I'm not assuming it's a complicated process, I'm saying it's outside of normal production testing. That's the thing once a die passes the K spec they won't test it any harder as it's already passed. To push any harder would potentially damage the die making it unsalable so if you're odds of finding a golden CPU is 1/100 (generous but we'll go with it) then to find 1000 review samples of just one SKU you'd be destroying 100,000 dies in the process, does that seem at all likely?

 

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

No that script would be to see wich ones are the best and mark the CPU as "Special".

Dies are tested before and after packaging, not putting in a retail box this means mounting on the PCB and loading on the final microcode to tell it and motherboards that it's a 8700K so the only place you could run a script is on the testing equipment which is already testing for a huge array of things. The problem is these are mostly pass for fail, you don't pass better than any other die that meets the spec.

 

For example for just one test if a die has to maintain 4.2Ghz on all cores at 1.2V to pass this does not tell you anything above this.

 

Point is you can't know how a die will preform outside of spec, that's impossible to know without actually testing it which is something Intel is not doing.

 

If you actually want to read more on how die/CPU valiation is done you can read this document from page 30 onward, https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/reference-guides/quality-system-handbook.pdf. Note a lot of the tests are to validate the product in the first place during development, they aren't done on mass production.

 

As @DarkSmith2 said, if it was so easy to identify golden dies from the current thousands of tests already been carried out Intel would already be putting them aside and selling them under a higher much more expensive SKU and people would buy them.... wait that is the K SKU.

[Guest The Viking]

12 hours ago, Enderman said:

His entire channel is just "intel sucks" or "nvidia sucks" and then taking data that supports his argument.

he has bashed AMD as well. A lot of times. It's true he used to bash nvidia and intel but at some point he just changed and started looking at the broader picture and then went ahead and bashed all 3 companies.

 

12 hours ago, Enderman said:

Probably because he doesn't want to spend any money.

oh because the other reviewers spend money? all i see is intel shipping entire pallets of chips to linus and sponsoring half his videos.

 

If you've bashed AMD/Intel/Nvidia as much as he has, then of course you'll have a hard time getting FREE samples. Though he gets stuff from AMD, and managed to get a few cards from MSI lent (not to keep, just to test). So yes he does some testing sometimes. But can you call what Linus & friends do testing anyway? nah, it's borderline "entertainment".

[Enderman]

1 hour ago, The Viking said:

oh because the other reviewers spend money? all i see is intel shipping entire pallets of chips to linus and sponsoring half his videos.

When doing certain testing or reviews, yes.

Their engineering sample vs retail CPU video? Both were purchased.

Their titan V video? Also purchased.

Intel sponsored like 3 of his videos. Less than AMD has. He talked about this recently.

[DarkSmith2]

no, i mean the guy in the video tries to trigger people, its all he does, for the clicks. He doesnt even get his facts right. Lets take for example the posted video. 

 

Sillicon Lottery has ofc statistics, statistics based on their own testing methology, running realbench for some hours, delidding and cooling it with a corsair h100 with stockfans, probably always done in a climated room always using the same paste and so on.

 

Now take the reviewers, they all do have completely different testing methologies each other and different than Silliconlotteries methology, so the data isnt comparable in its slightest, its just a man with an awful accent talking bogus nonsense about things he doesnt even understand just to give the crowd something or someone to hate on. 

 

I ask you where the hell is the evidence in this video? where? Its comparing different things. CPUs need less voltage with better cooling to reach the same clockspeeds and siliconlottery is using a "worst case 180w TDP cooler" for testing. There is nothing you can reliably compare with those statistics and the stuff the reviewers have done or "tested". Only thing iam seeing is a dude thats trying to make money out of youtube by talking bullshit...

[Guest The Viking]

3 hours ago, Enderman said:

When doing certain testing or reviews, yes.

Their engineering sample vs retail CPU video? Both were purchased.

Their titan V video? Also purchased.

Intel sponsored like 3 of his videos. Less than AMD has. He talked about this recently.

no, no, sponsoring isn't directly paying somebody. It includes sending FREE samples. Linus has been sent more than 3 videos worth of goodies from intel. Need new pcs for the editors? 1 pallet of new cpus just for ya, from daddy intel. Need to do some video about shitton cores or whatever? 

 

here, this isn't sponsored by intel, is it?

yet he got 4 $$$$$$$ from intel for free.

 

and this isn't my point. Adored may appear as a conspirationist and whatever, but he equally bashed all 3 companies.

 

He was also one of the first ones to abandon the vega train hype. While other people claimed it was going to be as fast as  a 1080ti, the dude sat, looked at all we knew, and concluded that no, vega 64 was most likely going to be around a 1080 with crazy power draw. Who was right? Him.

when people complained about the 480 power draw? he tested the thing in detail.

 

And if you are looking for somebody properly covering Radeon drivers, he's one of the few to go really in depth and look at all the details.

 

but whatever.

 

[DarkSmith2]

1 hour ago, The Viking said:

Adored may appear as a conspirationist and whatever, but he equally bashed all 3 companies.

thats the point he is lying and/or conceals facts to make money on youtube at the cost of the three companies and all techtubers+reviewers.

If i would be one of them i would sue him for calumny, because that is what he does.

[Jumper118]

19 hours ago, Enderman said:

Lol it's this guy again with his conspiracy theories based on other people's data instead of his own...

 

I'm sure reviewers that do this as their literal day-to-day job have far more experience overclocking than the average 15 year old gamer.

The data from siliconlottery is pretty much useless.

Motherboard, ram, and cooling also have an effect on how far you can push your CPU.

i agree 80%. maybe 2nd time ever  

[Guest The Viking]

29 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

thats the point he is lying and/or conceals facts to make money on youtube at the cost of the three companies and all techtubers+reviewers.

If i would be one of them i would sue him for calumny, because that is what he does.

maybe if he had a huge 5 million+ fanbase it would work. At a level of 60k subs? not really. And suing for calumny? for what? for calling nvidia out for their 3.5gb vram thing, for shitting on vega saying it won't be as fast as a 1080ti and for saying most 8700K can't reach 5ghz? if he can get sued for that, then I'm in trouble for shitting on Intel, nvidia, apple, samsung, seagate and whatever other companies i shit on.

[Blademaster91]

4 hours ago, The Viking said:

no, no, sponsoring isn't directly paying somebody. It includes sending FREE samples. Linus has been sent more than 3 videos worth of goodies from intel. Need new pcs for the editors? 1 pallet of new cpus just for ya, from daddy intel. Need to do some video about shitton cores or whatever? 

 

here, this isn't sponsored by intel, is it?

yet he got 4 $$$$$$$ from intel for free.

and this isn't my point. Adored may appear as a conspirationist and whatever, but he equally bashed all 3 companies.

He was also one of the first ones to abandon the vega train hype. While other people claimed it was going to be as fast as  a 1080ti, the dude sat, looked at all we knew, and concluded that no, vega 64 was most likely going to be around a 1080 with crazy power draw. Who was right? Him.

when people complained about the 480 power draw? he tested the thing in detail.

And if you are looking for somebody properly covering Radeon drivers, he's one of the few to go really in depth and look at all the details.

but whatever.

Alot of his followers like to accuse everyone else of being paid shills, you show a single video as proof yet you're not posting any proof of adored apparently bashing on AMD or vega? That youtuber dedicates whole videos to bashing on Intel & Nvidia, I don't see them doing that much with AMD. 

He's the one that hyped up vega like it was going to totally annihilate Nvidia,and has several other videos bashing on just Intel Coffee Lake. 

They also downplayed the RX480 power draw and pointed at the GTX960 as a strawman argument, GamersNexus and PCperspective both debunked his claims.

All those clickbait videos and adored didn't gain very many subs because they're known to just take a few things from other sources without getting facts right turning it into some biased outlandish theory.

But is GamersNexus,Kyle,Paul,Jay,ScienceStudio,HardwareUnboxed,TechDeals or anyone else I may have forgotten along with the rest of the tech reviewers a shill because they got review samples?

I still don't see a problem,it is overclocking we are discussing which isn't like the guaranteed base clocks,and the reviewers aren't telling you that all cpu's will hit what the top 3% do.

[Lathlaer]

The problem with that kind of comparison the guy did (as was pointed before) is that there isn't really a 100% info of what kind of testing does Sillicon Lottery do for the purpose of their binning and what kind of testing the reviewers did.

 

The burden on SL is much higher because they sell the chips to the customers and if you are going to pay MSRP +10-20% for a CPU, you better have some kind of guarantee that the extra money you paid is really getting you the result.

 

Meanwhile, reviewers don't have that much pressure on them. They don't sell those chips and it has been proven time and time again that their testing methodology (even here at LTT *cough*cpu testing at 4k*cough*) is varied and sometimes flawed.

 

In other words, what a reviewer considers stable and what Sillicon Lottery considers stable are two different things. Reviewer will put it through cinebench several times without crashing and will consider it good enough while it might still be considered unstable for the purpose of actually taking responsibility for the OC result in a sale, which SL does.

 

And all that is besides the point that SL, as a venture making money out of binning CPU's, has a high potential interest in tweaking the percentages a little here and there in order to justify their increased prices. And since there is virtually no way of disproving that...you get the idea. 

[M300843499]

On 3/30/2018 at 8:54 PM, Enderman said:

It's not bad, but he never seems to do any testing on his own.

Probably because he doesn't want to spend any money.

All this guy does is make videos about "binned GPUs" or other stuff intended to go viral.

He's been doing this for years.

His entire channel is just "intel sucks" or "nvidia sucks" and then taking data that supports his argument.

 

Are you talking about the siliconlottery forums or the actual site?

If the data is from random internet users, the "maximum overclock" obtained by a teenager who just enabled auto-OC on his motherboard is going to have a much lower frequency and far higher voltage than that which an experienced overclocker will obtain by manually overclocking. Which is what all reviewers do.

So of course the reviewers seem to get "excellent" chips when compared to the other 99% of people who overclock.

You mean he does things that ruffle your feathers mentally? he's one to go against the grain and call out BS, my kind of guy.

He called out AMD's BS also, no company is safe from his views, it just turns out that intel / nVidia are under fire a lot more than AMD because AMD has not done much recently to incite criticism. 

 

5 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Alot of his followers like to accuse everyone else of being paid shills, you show a single video as proof yet you're not posting any proof of adored apparently bashing on AMD or vega? That youtuber dedicates whole videos to bashing on Intel & Nvidia, I don't see them doing that much with AMD. 

He's the one that hyped up vega like it was going to totally annihilate Nvidia,and has several other videos bashing on just Intel Coffee Lake. 

They also downplayed the RX480 power draw and pointed at the GTX960 as a strawman argument, GamersNexus and PCperspective both debunked his claims.

All those clickbait videos and adored didn't gain very many subs because they're known to just take a few things from other sources without getting facts right turning it into some biased outlandish theory.

But is GamersNexus,Kyle,Paul,Jay,ScienceStudio,HardwareUnboxed,TechDeals or anyone else I may have forgotten along with the rest of the tech reviewers a shill because they got review samples?

I still don't see a problem,it is overclocking we are discussing which isn't like the guaranteed base clocks,and the reviewers aren't telling you that all cpu's will hit what the top 3% do.

Much like a buyer turns into a shill to stand up for their purchases.

[mr moose]

10 minutes ago, M300843499 said:

You mean he does things that ruffle your feathers mentally? he's one to go against the grain and call out BS, my kind of guy.

He called out AMD's BS also, no company is safe from his views, it just turns out that intel / nVidia are under fire a lot more than AMD because AMD has not done much recently to incite criticism. 

He doesn't call out BS though, he makes it up and twists any little thing he can to get a view.  There is a reason he only has 60K viewers and most of the tech world laughs at him.   The fact he even uses defamatory clickbait titles for all his videos should tell you all you need to know, i.e he's not a journalist, he's not even a journalists arsehole, he makes wccftech look like routers/TWJ. 

[Dabombinable]

9 minutes ago, M300843499 said:

It took you 8 minutes to type this.

I am not insulting anyone, you do that all by yourself, i am not here for a popularity contest, i am here to be me and give the truth to those who need it. It helps.

You're at least making ad hominem attacks (attacking the person instead of the argument). Just stop, its gets you no where.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

17 minutes ago, M300843499 said:

Please do not project your poison on to me, thank you.

 

[Neftex]

@leadeater what i would do is use all parameters from manufacturing that intel has available and train neural network (or similar) to predict overclocking capabilities, i dont think that would be hard for them to do (and i believe theyre smart enough to try that)

 

Now everyone opinions aside, you might not like his videos etc. but you shouldnt be mad at anyone who actually puts effort into trying to find something fishy.

Let him present what he found, then its up to you to accept it or have a go and disprove it. Put in real effort and maybe youll find something...

[Guest The Viking]

15 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Alot of his followers like to accuse everyone else of being paid shills, you show a single video as proof yet you're not posting any proof of adored apparently bashing on AMD or vega? That youtuber dedicates whole videos to bashing on Intel & Nvidia, I don't see them doing that much with AMD. 

He's the one that hyped up vega like it was going to totally annihilate Nvidia,and has several other videos bashing on just Intel Coffee Lake. 

They also downplayed the RX480 power draw and pointed at the GTX960 as a strawman argument, GamersNexus and PCperspective both debunked his claims.

All those clickbait videos and adored didn't gain very many subs because they're known to just take a few things from other sources without getting facts right turning it into some biased outlandish theory.

But is GamersNexus,Kyle,Paul,Jay,ScienceStudio,HardwareUnboxed,TechDeals or anyone else I may have forgotten along with the rest of the tech reviewers a shill because they got review samples?

I still don't see a problem,it is overclocking we are discussing which isn't like the guaranteed base clocks,and the reviewers aren't telling you that all cpu's will hit what the top 3% do.

check his channel ffs. 

 

you guys love to accuse but then never check. Where did he hype vega? all these vids just shit on it, while everybody else, even the nvidia crowd, was on the 1080ti hype train.

need more proof?

[PCPartListsYT]

On 3/30/2018 at 7:34 PM, Syryquil said:

 

This guy again with his not provable conspiracy theories.

[AnubArack]

ITT: Lots of words, very little value. I wasn't expecting anything more even before I decided to look for this thread.

I'm not even trying to defend AdoredTV (weird name, smh) but bringing up this subject here is a good indicator that I can't trust the opinion of 3/4 of people in this thread. 

Maybe instead of attacking him, defending Linus or perpetuating the circlejerk you could focus on the implications raised in the video? Intel, while having good performing chips is no saint so why are you white knighting them so hard?

 

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, AnubArack said:

you could focus on the implications raised in the video?

 

It was raised and dealt with. Not sure if you are aware but from the the very first response people were qualifying the data and explaining why he is wrong. No one is white knighting Intel, they are just being realistic.

 

The fact of the matter is adored has a reputation of making outlandish claims based on shaky data.   So in effect pointing out why adored says the stuff he says is further qualification to the reasoning.  For what ever reason, people treat all tech journalists as being equal, they are not, and if we don't point out the biased and clickbait journalists then no one learns. And every discussion inevitable comes back to something that someone learnt from guys like this.

 

EDIT: and I should probably point out that many people here take Linus to task when his channel has erroneous information on it.

 

 

[DarkSmith2]

1 hour ago, AnubArack said:

Maybe instead of attacking him, defending Linus or perpetuating the circlejerk you could focus on the implications raised in the video? Intel, while having good performing chips is no saint so why are you white knighting them so hard?

He compares different kinds of data and is pointing with his finger at intel and those reviewers, making all of them look bad, i care less for intel than for the reviewers. Listen, even the same motherboard model can have a difference to achieve the same overclocking result and can need +/-50mv with the exact same CPU, the LLC can be different on motherboard models (reviewers just pick boards randomly) the PSU matters, RAM matters, temperatures matter, everything has to be the same to make a qualified comparisson.

 

AdoredTV either doesnt know how overclocking works, or if he knows, he is concealing it on purpose to make money from less "pc-educated" people at the cost of the reviewers. This sucks.

[DildorTheDecent]

On 31/03/2018 at 12:28 PM, leadeater said:

Point is you can't know how a die will preform outside of spec, that's impossible to know without actually testing it which is something Intel is not doing.

>Implying Intel doesn't have in house overclockers.

 

Come on man, of course they have an in-house overclocking unit.

 

How else would they have made this?: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/gaming/how-to-overclock.html

 

Also @Lays if you're still around. Worked at Intel as an overclocking technician.

[Lurick]

So people honestly think a company would risk (possibly tens of) millions of dollars to get a couple hundred people a "special" CPU that will perform far out of the norm so that a small fraction of people who watch those videos will run out and buy their product the day of or the day after reviews are launched, expecting similar results and then hope that the whole scheme doesn't come roar back onto them in the form of far worse negative press and backlash that could potentially cost them a good deal of money in lost sales and trust?

 

I'd be willing to be something like 99% of people who see reviews and are smart enough in the first place to watch videos about a product are going to watch as many as they can and probably even wait a month or two before buying to make sure nothing is going to explode in their faces and at the same time check around and see what the people who did buy them early are getting for overclocks, not just a couple reviewers on YouTube.