None of this is wrong. The problem is that it's not the whole picture. For one, that HWUB screenshot is rather selective - in the games tested, roughly half saw results similar to that, and about half saw results where the lower end chips lagged much further behind (SOTTR, CP2077, Watch Dogs: Legion). There were still marked increases over stock, of course, but you're quite clearly picking one of the few results where the three chips are nearly tied. (I also find it rather hilarious how people just don't understand the concept of linking their sources. How hard can it be?)
On top of this: overclocking is not trivial. I entirely agree that if you're a budget constrained enthusiast, or have the time and willingness to teach yourself how to overclock, low end ADL will likely present a better value proposition than Zen4, at least until lower end Zen4 launches. However, if you don't then it doesn't, as overclocking potential that isn't used is utterly worthless. And, crucially, the vast majority of PC builders
do not overclock. One thing is talking about the small niche we as enthusiasts live in; another is talking about the market in general, the advice we give to others, etc. For someone who isn't an enthusiast, who just wants something that works out of the box, Zen4 will likely be a very good option - and we'll have to wait for reviews to see just how it stacks up against RPL.
@Dyatlov A's "point" as they're saying now - which wasn't a point made, but a question - makes no sense in the context of a mass market product launch, but instead seems to believe that AMD when launching a new product is only communicating with enthusiasts. Which ... well, just isn't the case. And that is the problem of asking "why didn't they compare it to OC'd ADL?" - it's a nonsensical thing to ask outside of a small niche of enthusiasts. It makes sense
to us, but applying that logic to AMD's statements just fundamentally fails to take into account how the world works.
