Unfortunately while AT still has some great deep-dives for mobile SoCs (top marks to Andrei Frumusanu), the x86 articles have become a bit shallow. And if that wasn't bad enough, they also suggest some bias.
They tend to bang the drum when it comes to Intel but in AMD reviews you'll get things like "Due to bad luck and timing issues we have not been able to test the latest Intel and AMD servers CPU in our most demanding workloads". It's a lot like reviewing a Ferrari but due to bad luck you could only test it in city traffic.
2 years ago they forgot to cover the Threadripper launch for 2 weeks while the front page was flooded with dozens of uninteresting half page articles about Intel motherboards being launched around the same time. I love a good tech article regardless of which brand they're talking about but bias will always kill the experience for me. YMMV I guess.
From watching these sites for years, I think you can see whatever bias you want to see. Some sites/authors do have clear bias, but a lot of it is just time pressure.
Often, review parts are shipped to sites with a review embargo until a certain date -- if you don't ship your review on that date, you lose out; if the shipment is late because of the vendor, or the shipping service, or the reviewer is sick, or out of town, or the shipped firmware isn't great and interim firmware makes a big difference the choices are:
a) take the time to do a full review, but publish late
b) do a cursory review, apologize and publish on time
c) do b, but follow up with a full review as time permits
If C happens more with AMD than Intel, it could be bias, it could be bad luck, or it could be Intel has been delivering more finished things to reviewers.
AT shouldn't get worse treatment than any other review site. If all the others can post detailed benchmarks or cover an event and only AT has consistent issues and bad luck at some point a pattern emerges.
I get that I can also be biased. But bias should be like noise, taking all of the articles together should average it out. In AT's case it's more like the signal rather than the noise. What really capped it off for me was not covering a public event that every other website covered, like the 2017 Threadripper launch. The signal was that they are even willing to ignore one of the most interesting launches in years to post articles about trivial motherboard announcements. I would never mind if Intel launched some awesome new CPU.
Then the confirmation came the following year, coincidentally also during a Threadripper event when they wrote multiple articles touting Intel's new 5GHz 28 core CPU. They missed the fact that it was a massive overclock chilled by an (admittedly hidden) 1HP chiller and their experience raised no red flags where even the comments did. But worse, when the bubble burst unlike every other publication AT's response was an anemic piece excusing Intel and with the literal conclusion that "the 28-core announcement was not ideally communicated".
I understand Intel's shenanigans to try to steal some of the attention that TR is getting. But as a journalist being played like that should trigger a more visible reaction. Consistently painting them in a good light just raises suspicions for me. And while I still read their articles I no longer take them or the conclusion at face value unless another big site confirms it.
Yes I totally understand that, and you could literally count with one hand how many people are working in Anandtech.
But sometimes I just want 2 Sentence on their Frontpage. Like
1) Today is the launch of AMD Threadripper, here are the Spec. It is exciting to test ( hype ) and we intend to publish a full review within 2 weeks.
Rather than just stay silent on the issue.
2) Today there is a new Intel threat called X, as published here ( Intel Official Documentation ) and here ( Likely the Bug have its own webpage now ). We may cover it with more details in the future.
I understand they have timing and staff issues. But two sentence will show they knew of the issue / press/ release rather than staying Silent on it.
May be Anandtech wants to be a pure review site, but then it is not has a section called News Pipeline. Staying silent on anything at Intel's disadvantage makes me question if they have slight bias towards Intel.
That was also around the time Anand left the company. They probably had transitional issues.
That being said, last year all I could read on their comments section was their bias towards AMD to the point they were being accused of being paid by AMD. They had a ton of AMD coverage, including I believe a one on one with Lisa Su.
So I’m currently taking accusations of bias with a grain of salt.
I wouldn't see Intel bias if AT gave them the spotlight during a time when they announced/launched massively interesting products (like Zen based CPUs were/are). I actually expect them to treat a new Intel architecture exhaustively even at the price of not having time for trivial AMD related news.
But if you read my concrete examples above and go to AT's site to confirm their legitimacy I think you will agree that this goes far beyond giving too much attention to one of them during a period of major change. They were willing to do exactly the opposite and refuse attention during a major launch to cover trivial topics for another company, they accepted being repeatedly played by the same company and never publicly held them accountable.
And this last part is arguably the most worrisome because it's no longer about one journalist's personal preference towards one company. It's their journalistic integrity. When you realize you were tricked into deceiving your readers you're expected to take a stand publicly. And at the very least learn from the experience and trust but verify. AT still enthusiastically covered paper launches that never materialized, with no "grain of salt" thrown in there. And it doesn't matter which brand they favor, only that they are not willing to take a stand after being repeatedly played for attention.
I still read them (only as secondary source) and not recommending against it. Just that the implicit trust I had when Anand was writing is off the table for me.
They tend to bang the drum when it comes to Intel but in AMD reviews you'll get things like "Due to bad luck and timing issues we have not been able to test the latest Intel and AMD servers CPU in our most demanding workloads". It's a lot like reviewing a Ferrari but due to bad luck you could only test it in city traffic.
2 years ago they forgot to cover the Threadripper launch for 2 weeks while the front page was flooded with dozens of uninteresting half page articles about Intel motherboards being launched around the same time. I love a good tech article regardless of which brand they're talking about but bias will always kill the experience for me. YMMV I guess.