AMD RyZen CPU Architecture for 2017

Ended up ordering a 1700 + Asus C6H + Trident Z 3600Mhz C16 16gb kit (Samsung b-die), a 1080 ti should be arriving the day after I get these. It was a bout time I upgraded my rig (was running a 3570k + 970 + 16 gigs 2133 ddr3 mem on a Z77 board).
Is there a chance you could be telling us about your experience with that rig?
I f-ing hate video reviews! :runaway:
I think we need to tone it down for posting video reviews on the forums. There are so many of them, but so few can actually be trusted.
 
Is there a chance you could be telling us about your experience with that rig?

Yep, I plan on doing some benching and trying out different memory speeds and how it affects performance. I also plan on overclocking the CPU as far as I can, only problem is that because of availability problems (Ram and GPU) I'll have to wait a month or so before I get the parts.
 
Ended up ordering a 1700 + Asus C6H + Trident Z 3600Mhz C16 16gb kit (Samsung b-die), a 1080 ti should be arriving the day after I get these. It was a bout time I upgraded my rig (was running a 3570k + 970 + 16 gigs 2133 ddr3 mem on a Z77 board).
I upgraded FROM and TO almost identical hardware. Apart from old single threaded games, you'll be very happy.
 
Same boat... If at least they was make a site review and just in addition a video...
I couldn't agree more! I understand some people prefer watching video reviews, and that's cool...but I hate them with a passion as the signal to noise ratio is way out of whack compared to a written review where I can read the introduction and jump to the conclusion and feel like I at least got a good gist of what the piece of hardware is about and how the review is. I don't always just skip all the middle bits, but I usually do at first just because a ton of sites release at once and I want to get a general read on how the hardware is being received before going back and diving in to the tests so I know what to be looking for.

Videos make that way too time consuming, and I personally just prefer to read something than have to watch and listen to it...it just takes so much more time than reading it does!

(Believe it or not I feel the same way about typing at times, I can type a bit faster than I can talk without much effort. ;) )
 
Video reviews are great for seeing the overlays in action for cpu and gpu usage on hardware you're considering buying.
 
Youtube, while you hate the format, is great as a platform to generate revenue for your content. Everyone can start a channel and get paid after 10.000 initial views.
Starting a website? Good luck!

So yes, I understand why most people have a tech youtube instead of a website, some do have a site though and they then link to it.
 
Because your favourite big tech websites are too busy ...... ....... ......... .....Nvidia and Intels' ........... .......... .......

Which is why for independent reviews people have to resort to youtube :)
 
I am afraid there will inevitably be only more young people coming with "tech" videos. Perhaps some limitation in architecture threads would be useful. For example do not allow embedding, that could at least force the poster to describe why people should click on his link.
 
I think being able to embed video is fine, unless there's some other side effect that makes it any more problematic than embedding a picture of the same size when not being played.

What I think would be needed is an expectation that the post that embeds it puts in the additional work to give the context and interpretation make it quickly useful, rather than putting the onus on other viewers to put extra time and work to effectively put together the original poster's position for them.

"What is the point being made?"
"Paraphrase or provide some kind of information to take place of a quote. Try to do this as if you were putting a subset of information in the post in case the video is removed or unviewable for some reason."
"What time segment am I supposed to check?"
"What do you interpret in that portion as going to the point you've made?"
and sometimes "I will try to view this later, but can you give bullet points so we can discuss it now?"
 
Until, for whatever reason, your youtube channel gets demonetized by google/youtube after being marked as "advertiser unfriendly" despite having millions of views.

edit:
Let's say Samsung buys 50% of all ads on Youtube.

Your tech channel has a video on how cheap Samsung Android phones can explode if you try to use them. Samsung pulls all ads.
You lose half your revenue...

Now you make videos praising Samsung and their amazing technologies.
Samsung reinstates all adds, and gives you free phones to test.

That is how the real world works.
 
Last edited:
Tech channels and other channels should say whatever they want to say as long as they don't break the law, even if we don't agree with them.
And it isn't up to google to decide who is advertiser "friendly" or "unfriendly", that's censorship.
 
And it isn't up to google to decide who is advertiser "friendly" or "unfriendly", that's censorship.
You're wrong and you're right, but don't feel bad because it's a common mistake on the web. It actually IS up to Google to decide who is or isn't allowed to run videos on THEIR site. Now you're right that this is censorship, but it is very much legal and prudent of Google to do so.

You don't really have the right to free speech on the internet for the most part, you have the right to say whatever the site owners will tolerate. Google is a privately held company who gets to make up their own rules about their services, and people get to choose if they care to use those services based on those rules. I know it sounds dumb and hokey, but you would not BELIEVE how many times I'd have to explain to people that just because they're a member of a website it doesn't give them the right to say whatever they wanted.

Sorry, just a personal peeve of mine. Too many years as a mod/admin at too many sites having to explain that to people. My apologies for the rant, but just pointing it out. :oops:
 
Back
Top