The purpose is to see how the processors aged over the five years since their release.
They way they are wording it, it’s performance after 5 years, not during 5 years. They even combined all those games across 5 years into one slide. After reading the title, watching the intro and watching summary results I had different idea of what they were testing than what they actually were testing, which I find weird.
including titles released this year (which you neglected to list, given your obvious contrarian agenda)
Sure, it’s agenda, not the fact that listing games from 2023 would add literally nothing to my comment. /s
I don’t know how do you imagine criticism would work if we would be obligated to list things that are correct. Of course when I’m complaining about problems I’m seeing, I won’t list every thing I don’t see a problem with. You just wrote about things from comment you don’t agree with, but you haven’t listed any things you think I got right. So, do you think literally everything in my comment is wrong, or do you have obvious contrarian agenda?
I wrote how many games they tested in total, and counted games older than 1 year. Even if “out of 21 games tested most are older than a year” for reason unknown to me is not specific enough for you, number of how many games from this year they tested is only “hidden” behind basic math.
If by “listed” you are speaking about the fact that I wrote names of older games - I did that so anyone could verify if I was right about how many how old games they tested. Like someone could say “well this game had overhaul this year so it’s more like this year game”, or “well this game isn’t 3 years old it’s 2 years 10 months old” or “well this port have many new features so it’s more CPU heavy than original”. I literally wrote it so it would be easier to disagree with me if people have relevant information that I don’t have.
They way they are wording it, it’s performance after 5 years, not during 5 years. They even combined all those games across 5 years into one slide. After reading the title, watching the intro and watching summary results I had different idea of what they were testing than what they actually were testing, which I find weird.
Sure, it’s agenda, not the fact that listing games from 2023 would add literally nothing to my comment. /s
I don’t know how do you imagine criticism would work if we would be obligated to list things that are correct. Of course when I’m complaining about problems I’m seeing, I won’t list every thing I don’t see a problem with. You just wrote about things from comment you don’t agree with, but you haven’t listed any things you think I got right. So, do you think literally everything in my comment is wrong, or do you have obvious contrarian agenda?
I wrote how many games they tested in total, and counted games older than 1 year. Even if “out of 21 games tested most are older than a year” for reason unknown to me is not specific enough for you, number of how many games from this year they tested is only “hidden” behind basic math.
If by “listed” you are speaking about the fact that I wrote names of older games - I did that so anyone could verify if I was right about how many how old games they tested. Like someone could say “well this game had overhaul this year so it’s more like this year game”, or “well this game isn’t 3 years old it’s 2 years 10 months old” or “well this port have many new features so it’s more CPU heavy than original”. I literally wrote it so it would be easier to disagree with me if people have relevant information that I don’t have.