you are heavily underestimating young people here (and to be clear, I'm 48 years old). We are speaking about computer gamers here, and many of them know about their hardware.
By the way my entire point was that speaking about "14 years old players" is silly...
Sorry, but you are
very much overestimating the knowledge of the average PC gamer. As people who frequent this and other forums will no doubt agree with me on, the average non-hardware enthusiast neither knows or cares about features like this, and if they know anything it is typically a poorly informed opinion mostly based on marketing and/or a reddit-based game of telephone where what comes out the other end is rather inaccurate.
I didn't even write about
not trusting them
You said they were cherry-picked benchmarks. That means the benchmarks were picked to make them look good, not to be accurate. That makes them
unreliable, which means
you can't trust them. So yes, you did write about not trusting them.
The level of aggressiveness in this thread by AMD supporters is staggering.
I just said we need the independent reviews to actually understand the real performance of the hardware, because data showed ARE cherrypicked (the whole situation is cherrypicked being a marketing presentation) and far from being complete.
I didn't saying they were lying. They are just showing one part of the story, and it is perfectly understandable. To know how much the 6800 is better than 3070 on an average system (one without a Zen 3) we need the review.
I don't mean to come off as aggressive, so sorry about that. But IMO you're using "cherry picked" wrong. It means
to pick what is/looks best or most desirable, so that implies that they are leaving out (potentially a lot of) worse-looking results. Going by recent history from AMD product launches (Zen+, Zen 2, RDNA 1, Renoir), their data has been relatively reliable and in line with reviews. Their numbers also include games where they tie or lose to Nvidia, which while obviously not any kind of proof that these aren't best-case numbers, is a strong indication that they're not just picking out results that make them look good. As I said, there is one reason to not trust these numbers: the fact that they weren't produced by a reliable third party. Beyond that, recent history, the selection of games (broad, including titles where they both win and lose), the relatively detailed test setup notes, and the use of standard settings levels rather than weirdly tuned "AMD optimal" settings (see the Vega launch) are all reasons why one could reasonably expect these numbers to be more or less accurate. Of course the use of games without built-in benchmarks means that numbers aren't directly comparable to sites using the same games but different test scenarios, but that doesn't make the numbers unreliable, just not comparable. I am obviously still not for pre-ordering or even taking this at face value, but your outright dismissal is too harsh. I would be very surprised if these numbers (non-SAM, non Rage mode) were more than 5% off any third-party benchmarks.
being full of 14 yo doesn't mean the majority are 14 yo as claimed above.
That was my point.
Clearly we are speaking just about PC players here, because people playing Fortnite on a Playstation , a Nintendo or a smartphone clearly could be totally unaware of PC technologies.
Saying the majority are 14 was obviously an intentional exaggeration, and taking it
that literally is a bit too much for me. Besides that, even the average PC gamer knows
very little about hardware or software features. Remember, the average PC gamer plays games on a laptop. The biggest group after that uses pre-built desktops. Custom, self-built or built-to-order desktops are a distant third. And even among that group, I would be surprised if the majority knew anything detailed about what DLSS or any comparable feature is - most gamers spend more time playing games than reading about this kind of stuff.
, the tone and wording is quite different imho.
