And what about the "hardware fixes"? What % of lost performance did it gain back compared to the so called previous gen CPUs without the "fixes"?
There is so much to talk about in this review...
First, SuperPi is an Intel friendly benchmark only used to show non-Intel products in a bad light, and commonly used to give skewed power efficiency numbers, which heavily favour Intel. When I see it used in a review, and its results used to unfairly critique, then I normally will next look for Intel ads, or ads featuring Intel products running on the page, then read no further. WinZIP (amazingly not included here) is another example of this, and is heavily optimized by Intel, for Intel. LAME has not been in active development for god knows how many years, and it's core is ancient, and only optimized for Intel, WinRAR is questionable due to no optimization or much of any kind for that matter for AMD or Intel, Adobe is paid by Intel, and is optimized for them, as is Microsoft (wIntel).
And who plays games on a near $300 CPU at 720p? These results, and their inclusion here are questionable when taken in context, and are only there due to a minor weakness in the Ryzen design, and would never be a thing in the real world, but they sure do make Intel look great, so you can see why they are included.. It must be a fantastic, amazing experience to game at 20% higher FPS at 720p! I only miss the 640x480 results, that would have been a real smash for Intel, and would really scare many potential AMD customers away, and would certainly make my buying choice that much more easier... "...the 720p performance that concerns us. Sure, you'll probably never game at 720p, but numbers obtained at that resolution highlight the minimum FPS the machine is capable of in a scenario where the GPU is not a bottleneck." Why are you concerned, and more importantly, why should I, or anyone else be? I game at 1440p, and simply don't care about a 2.5% FPS difference, as it's imperceivable, I am currently looking at going to 4K for my next monitor, not back to 720p... I don't know of anyone queuing up at the local second hand store, trying to buy a 15 year old HD Ready TVs to game on... I hope this is a mistake in the reviewers thought process, rather than this site spreading Intel sponsored FUD...
Anyway, you can see that most modern software (excluding games, which are often still sponsored and therefore optimized by, or for Intel) is not like this, and is shown in the results in this test. When you see a slow, low core count i3 Intel CPUs beating a 2700x, then you have to look at what the software is, who it is coded by, and whether Intel has ever used it in any of their marketing before. And you really have to question why old software, written many years before the hardware was even a dream, is used to tell people to buy a product, or not....... Ethics anyone?
Most of this goes back to the days where Intel was paying huge sums of money to make AMD look as bad as possible, and some of it is still going on today.
If AMD do manage to include the new x2 speed improvements for arithmetic functions in their upcoming CPUs for the desktop, then it will be interesting to see how that will affect Intel optimized software in favour of brute force speed improvements from AMD in many of these benchmarks. Ryzen 3xxx will be interesting, to say the least.