In any case, this is off topic in a Zen thread.
It's not off-topic. This topic is about benchmarking. Benchmarking is about comparing one architecture to another. My posts have been about the Blender benchmark and how it relates to Piledriver, including the first post today that included the Desert of Kharak result.
Yea, it was a great success. Look at how it helped them gain market share and take over the server market, oh, wait, I must be confused, that wasnt bulldozer was it?
1) Servers and gaming are not the same market. My post specifically discussed gaming. Obviously, AMD suffered more in the server market where performance per watt is more important. People have been discussing gaming performance, though.
2) Market success and architectural design quality are two different issues.
the cherry picked benchmark you managed to dig out doesnt include intel's latest architecture
1) As I already said, not only is that not the only gaming result that demonstrates my point I haven't seen anyone other than myself make the complaint about cherry-picking a benchmark in relation to the Ryzen Blender hype — in terms of how it provides an insufficient picture of performance due to not leveraging AVX/XOP.
2) Why should a 2012 architecture be compared with the latest Intel architectures to demonstrate that it's not a massive failure?
and in any case appears to be gpu limited, since the top six cpus show identical performance.
It's clearly not GPU limited, certainly not the point of not being able to demonstrate my point.
I'm going to say this once, too. If you or anyone else wish me to respond to anything you post in the future, make it polite.
Facebook
Twitter