I think they would. People have a high developed skill of installing programs they've found online.
It's also about the learning curve. You've read somewhere that Ryzen can be optimized with some tweaks. There's an app mentioned. It's quick and easy to install, but then you get bored and in the end you still don't know what XMP is.
To be honest, I've installed Nvidia drivers when I got this PC and I haven't touched them since. I don't know what the options do, I've never got through all the menus.
When I open GeForce Experience once in a while (to update the driver) there's a huge sign saying "Game optimization: Ready". I hope it makes my games run better, not turn off half of the GPU.
It seems to me that you don't know how AMD's gaming mode is activated. AMD's gaming mode isn't some default/standard setting in its normal drivers. You don't need drivers to run a cpu in the first place. AMD's Ryzen gaming mode is a setting that is only found in its special overclock/unlocking program called "AMD Ryzen Master." A person needs to go out of their way to download this special program that is completely unnecessary to Ryzen's normal operations because it's for unlocking/overclocking. That is not the same as downloading "required" graphics drivers from Nvidia to allow it to run normally. Downloading Ryzen-Master would be more comparable to you downloading an unnecessary and extraneous GPU overclocking utilities for your graphics card.
So your comparison is not analogous. Installing the necessary standard drivers that GPUs need to run and letting it run by itself is not remotely the same as going out of your way to install special extraneous drivers for overclocking/unlocking that you don't need in the first place and switching then on a special mode in the settings.
I don't "claim". I know such people. Just like I know dozens of people that use Excel, but don't know how it works. Or even more specialized things: databases, scientific scripting (like R) and so on.
That's the great thing about abstraction. You can use something and it makes your life easier, but you don't have to know how it works. But this concept needs to be well implemented.
Do you think "game mode" is a good name for something that ruins gaming performance?
1) Your analogy misses the point. Nobody needs to download special programs to run Excel. However, if you download special programs to change Excel's basic functions, then yes, people would generally need to read the instruction manuals to figure out how it works.
Just like nobody needs to download any software to run AMD's Ryzen CPU. You just install the CPU and it runs without any special software. However, if you download a special overclocking/unlocking program that is completely extraneous and unnecessary to its normal operations, then it makes logical sense to read the instruction manual first.
To Summarize:
Run the Excel program normally = you don't need any special add ons and you don't need to read the manual
Run special extraneous programs to change the functionality of Excel = You need to READ the damn manual
Run Ryzen CPU normally = you don't need any special drivers and you don't need to read the manual
Download special extraneous programs intended for overclocking/unlocking = You need to READ the damn manual
2) The gaming mode is a part of an extra program that is unnecessary for normal functionality and is specifically intended for Threadripper CPUs as stated in the instructions. It boosts gaming performance of Threadrippers and thus works as intended. it's an extra program that people don't need in the first place, and it doesn't ruin gaming performance when it's used properly.
Man, why are you so paranoid about it?
8700K was Intel's answer to 1800X. 9900K is an answer for 2700X.Do you really want to be the person who runs around praising AMD superiority, because there's a half year gap between release dates?
Furthermore, 1800X is just 1.5 year old and still available. It's not like I compared to Bulldozer.
I am not being "paranoid." I am simply pointing out your logical inconsistency of using a completely irrelevant CPU to talk about AMD's performance. The articles and benchmarks relevant to this thread never once talked about the 1800X. They were all talking about the 2700X. You went out of your way to bring up an irrelevant older CPU for no legitimate reason - other than maybe just trying to make a point about how AMD is bad in gaming?
The 8700K's true competitor is the 2700X in terms of BOTH price and performance. That's why the PT benchmarks and Techspot & Techpowerup's articles were all comparing the 8700k with the 2700X.
Furthermore, your claim that we should be comparing the 8700K with the 1800X because the 8700K was the answer the 1800X makes no sense, because the 1800X was also an answer to the 7700k. Does that mean we should use your logic and make it a comparison between the 1800X and 7700k? Then instead of being 50% pointless, we are at 100% pointless. Just stick to the actual CPUs relevant to the discussion on hand and don't veer off topic with a CPU nobody even discussed.
so which is it? or you just talking more nonsense?
