And cherry picked benchmarks irrelevant to real world scenarios
gloriousPurpose33
More like cpu0 xddddddd
Wrightd767
Userbenchmark:
1. Intel circa 2020
2. Intel circa 2010
3. Intel circa 2000
4. 4-1738228. Intel 1990
1738229. AMD, BEWARE OF INFLUENCER REVIEWS AND PAID SHILLS. THE BAD AMD MAN TOUCHED ME.
solonit
The bottom one doesn’t start at 0 and stretched
kdesi_kdosi
fake, none of the bars switched places
Cautious-Yam8451
Don’t trust a graph you didn’t fake yourself.
Legal_Lettuce6233
I still remember that 6900k benchmark, Intel. I don’t forget.
vurun
And all of them are full of shit most of the time ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Kaenguruu-Dev
Im kinda waiting for logarithmic graphs to show up in their marketing materials
Bacon-muffin
As far as consumers are concerned those may as well be the same graph
15 Comments
So true, lol
r/dataisugly
[deleted]
Nvidia: “Look the bar is 50 bajillion times bigger when we compare apples(5090+DLSS4+MFG) to oranges(GT1030+DDR4).
https://preview.redd.it/xbd56c2m3i4f1.jpeg?width=723&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=95073656435dadf7371931bc13c8b45af3cd9ee8
Lying with statistics
And cherry picked benchmarks irrelevant to real world scenarios
More like cpu0 xddddddd
Userbenchmark:
1. Intel circa 2020
2. Intel circa 2010
3. Intel circa 2000
4. 4-1738228. Intel 1990
1738229. AMD, BEWARE OF INFLUENCER REVIEWS AND PAID SHILLS. THE BAD AMD MAN TOUCHED ME.
The bottom one doesn’t start at 0 and stretched
fake, none of the bars switched places
Don’t trust a graph you didn’t fake yourself.
I still remember that 6900k benchmark, Intel. I don’t forget.
And all of them are full of shit most of the time ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Im kinda waiting for logarithmic graphs to show up in their marketing materials
As far as consumers are concerned those may as well be the same graph