So obviously Ian Cuttress and Anand Lal Shimpi both left the site almost a decade ago, and the current crop of writers are whatever. I mean, check out this Zionism 14900KS review in which the phrase “represents the last processor to end an era as Intel is removing the ‘i’ from its legendary nomenclature for future desktop chip releases” exists. My comrade in chains, Anandtech was one of the first sites I recall reading that complained about how nonsensical the “Core i” branding was! Everybody hates that shit! Intel branding has always been dogshit!!!
There’s also this Arctic Freezer 36 which does not feature the cheaper-and-better Thermalright g@mer line coolers which are very popular right now. A lot of their laptop reviews lately lack many comparison data points, so on. It’s kinda sad.
Aside from having a really good layout that worked on the 14.4k throttled rural internet I had when I was 15, I also just really enjoyed reading stuff like the 2008 “Best Dual Core At $70” comparison between the Pentium E5300 and Athlon 7850, or basically any graphics card reviews between 2008 and 2013. That GT 240 hitpiece is a banger. The old laptop reviews of stuff like that Gateway Id49c taught me exactly why 768p laptop screens looked like garbage. I got like 70% of my computers autism from Anandtech, it was often a really handy reference guide.
Nowadays I try to read it and it’s just junk like you see above. Some of it reads like press copy, almost. Nothing as funny as blowing out multiple AM2+ boards with a Phenom 9950BE, no joy. Makes me sad. Is this what it feels like to be a bitter, nostalgic boomer?
You must log in or register to comment.
I could write a similar rant about Tom’s Hardware.
We have Gamers Nexus though so it’s not all bad.
I like Gamer Steve but I miss text reviews, the video-fication of everything sucks
Yeah, I went to anandtech for my tech news since the late 90s, but I stopped a few years ago. They wrote fewer and fewer articles, and the ones coming out were just not very good. The site used to be great because they were the only ones that had really in depth articles about new CPU and GPU architecture, rather than just benchmarks.
I hate videos so I don’t know where to go now. Any text based sites worth going to?
I wish I knew
I’ve read articles from like, tweaktown, hardocp, overclock3d, wccftech, guru3d and some others, like I used to dig Johnnyguru when that was around but none of em hit like Anand…Johnnyguru works for Corsair now, designing their hardware iirc
Make budget power supplies then…
IKR need more competition
OH me too, I hate watching videos that should be articles. Text is so much better, faster, more convenient for this sort of reference material. I cannot stand having to scrub through a video to find a figure or a table.
You don’t need a half hour video to show me power usage graphs, Steve
I dunno, if that’s the only viable way to fund the endeavor, fine, people will keep watching that garbage, just maybe also post key facts and figures in searchable text form
Yeah that would be best, and I’d also rather have Steve than not tbf…
I thought GN still had text reviews on their site?
Maybe, I kind of assumed it was like Digital Foundry’s site Idk.
GNSteve getting in a car crash would pretty much kill english-language tech journalism.
u better not be near the lathe rn
How I feel about Cracked. com
too much ranting about cooler testing
man CPU cooler reviews. I’m usually interested in two things:
- how is the performance of this cooler relative to others?
- how could I expect this cooler to perform on my system?
I’ve read a lot of cooler test reports and at least in the older ones, I remember so often they could present useful comparative data but not absolute data. For instance, straight up not measuring the CPU power draw so that unless you have this exact CPU it wouldn’t tell you much about how the cooler would perform on your system.
I mean look at this - how much power is “Idle”? and “load”? STOP TELLING ME WHAT THE VOLTAGE AND CLOCKSPEED IS I DON’T CARE. HOW MUCH POWER IS IT
I remember I would have to dig up other reviews of the CPU where they report the power draw at different clock speeds so I could guess at how much power was being dissipated in the cooler tests.
This review kind of has the same issue, though it tries to do better. I do appreciate the attempt at doing a standardized constant power testing, but the results are unrealistically low for core temps. The Hyper 212 absolutely does not hold 32.8C over ambient at 200W of real CPU heat dissipation (at least, unless the ambient temperature is like 50C. what is ambient? I don’t think they specified). This doesn’t seem like a good approximation of any modern CPU and is still only useful for a comparative test. Or maybe this is more of a Tcase estimate, which is much less useful than Tdie.
I look at cooler reviews as relative. X cooler is 1 degree cooler than Y cooler. I don’t really care what temperature my CPU ends up at, as long as it’s not pegged at max temp.
Real as fuck, honestly most cooler reviews are pretty damn useless. I’m guessing idle would be like 24°C, maybe?
Exactly, it’s probably something like 24C. That would put the 200W loaded Hyper 212 at around 56.8C, which is not very plausible.
Yeah not a goddamn chance lmao. I was overloading that thing above 80°C on an overclocked 4690k running 4.4GHz at some kinda high voltage…
