Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Oct 5, 2022.
That's unfortunate. I look forward to when you do review them. It's always a high quality, honest take with no BS. Guru3D reviews are the gold standard.
Alchemist wasn't created to be sold, it was created as PoC,
that it can sell is just a cherry on top.
Intel cannot optimize the 9on12 DDI, what you see is what you get.
Maybe is better like that, most of the YT reviews show the face of the host for 98% of the time. They are freaking ridiculous! You click to see a gpu showcase and its performance analysis and instead you see a stranger reading a text and making faces. Identical rooms with colored walls, rgb lights, a fancy expensive keyboard, a shelf with cpu and gpu boxes, and a little plant over the Ikea standing desk. Videos with the same kind of editing, clickbait thumbnails and titles.
It's just a waste of time! They are advertising themselves. Better to search for specific comparisons and tasks, where the hardware that interests us is showed doing what we want to see. Random people playing the game that we prefer, or making a comparison of AMD and NVIDIA with DaVinci Resolve or Blender, or pushing the cpu that interest us in a specific scenario. These kind of videos are miles better than what channels like Linus, Jayz or gamernexus can provide.
Anandtech hasn't made a GPU review in several years, ever since their GPU reviewer got his house burned in a fire.
Damn, how extreme was that overclock?
I think it was one of those gigantic California forest fires.
Of course they did not select Guru3D, they knew you'd tell the truth.
Also A770 "limited edition", indeed, lol
You accurately described every tech tuber ever. Also don't forget royalty free techno bs music!
I made the exact same observation a while back.
There are good smaller channels too though but ofc they are an afterthought for hardware vendors too often.
Did he not give enough attention to the raytracing performance in reviews? Well that's a new low from Nvidia
It takes time to write drivers to play nicely with 100's of thousands of games across multiple DirectX versions. The use of 9on12 should only be a stop-gap measure, since even it doesn't guarantee that games will actually run properly. I would hope, over time, Intel works on writing drivers that play nicely with DX9-11... If not, they'll never be an option for me.
Not all of us want to see a "use case specific" review. When I'm looking for a CPU or GPU review, I want to see multiple scenarios tested. For a CPU review, I want to see a general work-flow benchmark, a compress/decompress benchmark, gaming benchmarks, code compile benchmarks and virtualization benchmarks. I don't care how well it overclocks because I'm unlikely to overclock given how fast thermals can runaway.... For most CPU reviews, I refer to G3D and GN. For a GPU review, all I care about are game benchmarks. I don't care about Blender or Resolve. I'm not looking at Pro cards. I'm looking at gaming oriented cards. For GPU reviews, much like CPU reviews, I refer to G3D and GN.
As a non-competitive: 60 fps/1080p Gamer.
I wanted this new GPU to work out for me.
But now all the reviews are in. The killers are the 1% lows and the power draw.
Here's the channel link....
It would be interesting seeing six months from now retesting the arc gpus to see if drivers improved at all.
its not a stop gap measure, intel has no intent on producing a D3D9 UMD, else they would have kept the existing one.
If I've missed it I apologise but these cards are borked drivers wise. So maybe Guruof3d may review when the drivers are adequate.
Plus the ridiculous minimum requirements for the other hardware is ridiculous!
It's first round, these things happen, it's to be expected.
There is a difference between opinions with facts done via testing.
LTT often seem to let opinions cloud them facts.