Heh. I am familiar enough with the world that I don't need to have someone tell me how to think.
The outrage on the forums over this is fanned by the fact that it started because no one talked to the company who conducted the testing. Steve here at Hardware Unboxed was right to call out the variances. But then you have to contact the folks and give them a chance to answer to their results. Steve at Gamers Nexus was fortunate enough to be close to the company office and had the good common sense to go speak to them. They could have shut the door in his face, they didn't.
The rest of the YouTube tech world just piles on mindlessly after, as far as I am concerned. The company issued a press release answering most of the concerns, as well as stating that they will redo the Ryzen 7 2700X results due to not being knowledgeable about AMD's Game Mode, which they used for Threadripper. I can't say I know their minds, like you do apparently, but I could see how they might mistake Game Mode to be something AMD thinks is a good thing to enable. Call it an honest mistake they are willing to rectify.
Finally, I don't believe a company that has been in business since 2003, and works with a lot of corporations, would risk their reputation just to "shill" for Intel, doesn't make sense.
Knowledge is not a way of thinking, it's data that one learns. You can stop with "don't tell me how to think!" because no one is doing that.
Steve talked with the company and the result is still the same. If they had shut the door in his face they would only look worse.
Here are some of their responses
"“Only the 2700X came with a cooler. The rest required a cooler to be added. AMD certainly did not seem to think their cooler was inadequate, so it seemed a reasonable choice.”"
This is not a response I'd expect from an expert. This is a snarky comment I'd expect from a teenager. He doesn't apologize for making such a basic mistake and there is no indication that they even feel this was an issue. Here is GN's response:
"If testing in a controlled environment, the single element which matters is equality between all test beds. If that’s an NH-U14S, so be it – AMD gets one, too. In this instance, for whatever reason, it seems the AMD platforms were relegated to objectively weaker stock coolers"
As is made clear, PT completely failed to justify their use of different coolers and in fact GN concludes here that they failed to even create a controlled environment.
In response to using 64GB of memory (which disadvantages AMD) GN stated
"Very few are reasonably purchasing this much memory and, given that this benchmark focuses entirely on gaming tests (and not “production” tasks), we must look at it from a gaming scenario. No meaningful gaming build with a non-HEDT platform is opting for 64GB of memory."
and in response PT only had this to say:
"I don't have a particular response to that"
Their response to game mode?
"Use of "Game Mode" on the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X: Some inquiries we have received concern the use of the Ryzen utility and the number of active cores in the AMD-based systems. Based on AMD's recommendations and our initial testing on the Threadripper processors, we found installing the AMD Ryzen Master utility and enabling Game Mode increased most results. For consistency purposes, we did that for all AMD systems across Threadripper and Ryzen. We are now doing additional testing with the AMD systems in Creator Mode. We will update the report with new results."
BS. AMD only recommends the use of Game Mode with Threadripper CPUs. AMD has NEVER recommended game mode for use on Ryzen processors. Yes, they went out of their way to enable game mode but not install the same cooler for each test bed. No, they threw out any idea of consistency out the window. On top of that, they try to pass the blame off to AMD. You aren't going to make me believe professionals didn't once google what Game Mode does or ask AMD? Yeah, no.
They were also, once again as professionals, completely unaware of the games they used were in GPU bound situations.
Finally, I don't believe a company that has been in business since 2003, and works with a lot of corporations, would risk their reputation just to "shill" for Intel, doesn't make sense.
You didn't watch the Adored video at all did you? PT has deep ties to Intel that go far beyond just paying for this benchmark.
If anything, the interview has only made it more certain. Don't take my word for it, Steve explicitly states at the end of the video that "it is absolutely fair to question the validity of the data".
Near the start of the video the CEO of PT states he's 'been benchmarking for longer then you've been alive". It is impossible that PT made that many mistakes, things even a 1st time benchmarker on youtube wouldn't do, and then go on the record and play incompetent. Their mistakes are intentional and it's why Intel has and continues to pay them.
Take a look at PT's portfolio
https://www.principledtechnologies.com/portfolio-marketing#Intel2004
They have more Intel entries then every other company combined and it's the only one they sort by year. In fact many of their other entries for other companies deal with products containing Intel IP as well.
They are consistent when it benefited Intel and inconsistent when it benefited Intel. This wasn't remotely objective and isn't remotely anything I'd expect out of professionals. Bill Catchings has been benchmarking/marketing since 1998 (you can still find his software projects online). The answers he gave in that interview are completely contrary to the few interviews I've read from him in the past two decades. He knows better, that much is certain.
