OCAU thing I saw....

[Duvie]

There is actually a guy there who is excited about the 600 series P4s and loves to post a review like this one....

http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-263-1.htm

He is bragging how the 600 series is doing so well...This is agianst a 3000+ AMD64 only!!! LOL!!!

Go over there and tell him how well the 600's and 3.73ghz Extreme really did....It didn't even beat the 3.46ghz EE in a mjority of the test!!!

 

[HannibalTheCannibal]

This is not a fair test either unless you include all factors of the test. BIOS, Board, CPU Stepping, Power Supply, And all that bizness. That is very unscientific and unreliable whichis why HannibalTheCannibal gives it two thumbs down.

BTW You see these new improved 600 chips running high 40's? lots of overclocking room there ..NOT!!! LMO And his price chart is way out of whack.
Anyway, nice find.....

 

[lowlight]

Have you even read the review?

The 660 is not compared to the A64 3000+. That is left for the 630.

And I am not 'excited' about either brand winning results. All I can do is test fairly, and present the results. Other sites who do these tests fairly will come up with identical results. If you look at other sites who tested similar CPU's, you will find similar results.

And throughout the review, the 3.73 did not beat the 3.46. That was explained in some of the tests - the longer pipeline is most likely holding it back in some tests.

In most office apps I tested, the 630 (which runs at 3 GHz) does beat the 3000+. Of course it gets absolutely killed in gaming, and costs $100 more.

I don't see how you didn't understand that, and why I would have to explain it to you.

And as far as "including all the factors of the tests" like power supply.. wtf does that have to do with benchmarking results?

And the price chart is not 'out of whack' the prices were taken directly from the #1 hardware reseller, the same day the article was published.

I know we're not as widely known as Anand, but I think the criticisms are not warranted. Although I shouldn't have to spell the article out over again in a forum, you really s hould give it another chance. If there is something that deserves criticism (and I don't mean not listing the power supply used in CPU tests), then by all means give it to me and I will consider it for the site. But if it's simply you misinterpreting my writing, well there's not much I can do about that

 

[Duvie]

WTH are you talking about moron????

I said the 3.46ghz beat the 3.73ghz...What are you talking about...You are agreeing with me....

I have stated this in about 2-3 other post the reason the 3.73ghz loses is the longer pipeline and the major flaw in my opinoin of the prescot cores....

Why run the A64 with cas 3 memory??? You think you are somehow evening it up against the cas 3 of the DDR2???

 

[MDE]

Originally posted by: Duvie
WTH are you talking about moron????

I said the 3.46ghz beat the 3.73ghz...What are you talking about...You are agreeing with me....

I have stated this in about 2-3 other post the reason the 3.73ghz loses is the longer pipeline and the major flaw in my opinoin of the prescot cores....

Nah, try a 2.4A Prescott.

 

[lowlight]

Nevermind...

 

[Duvie]

Also after first glance I though the guy at OCAU was right and you onl y had a 3000+...It is the crappy way you put your charts together...Boy is that annoying!!!!

 

[zakee00]

that article looks OK to me, its not perfect but hey
cas3 isnt a good thing...
and there was like one other error

your review looks pretty biased twards intel though; the amds have never done that poorly in any other review ive read.

overall it wasnt worth posting and flaming over....
i just think its pretty pathetic that intels have to throttle down in order to idle at HIGHER temps then my amd does when overclocked...
nice improvement for intel though :thumbsup:

 

[Zebo]

I like the review so far (still reading) .. Ilike how he uses DivX DVD2AVI, which most sites don't show and I use...I also liked what he said about AMD's beweildering pressor numbers....

That ram stuff is BS though..

 

[lowlight]

Any bias would is your own perception, believe me

Not that I have anything against Intel. I just don't have anything FOR them either. I look at the results after testing.

If I was to stick to the standard benchmarks - 3dmark, some games, sciencemark, and sisoft sandra, my reviews would look like most of the others, showing the A64 winning in every category. However once you look at real world apps, thanks to Worldbench and SYSmark, you get a better picture of actual system performance. And as anyone who has actually used a Hyperthreading or Dual CPU config can attest, it REALLY improves overall smoothness to basically every computing experience.

So the facts are as I stated in the review, technological progress notwithstanding (the 600's are JUST catching up to what AMD brought out 2 years ago). The fact is, P4's do very well in office apps, where multiple threads are used, and mutliple windows are open. They also excel in video encoding with various codecs (DivX, Xvid, WMA), and in audio encoding in MP3, WMA, OGG. However for gaming, there really is no contest. And heat levels, the P4's are smoking, although that has gotten better with the 600's. A64 is also the best choice for 'pure number crunching' like many of the distributed computing programs out there. And don't even get me started on price!

My site might come off as being too upfront for a lot of people, but that's how it's always been. The facts are there, and you need to take it for what you can use it for. After reading my review (and maybe extra explanation in this forum thread), you will know where the P4 does well, and not so well. And where the A64 does well, and not so well. No bias, no "bragging", nothing.

 

[Duvie]

I also noticed after more thorough reviewing and getting past the chart thing...It is pretty good...the commentary or summary are a bit weak..."the 3000+ is lift in the dust"???? Come on that is like the extreme bottom of the A64's...that is like have a 3.0E in your review...ofcourse it wont keep up in some more of the mhz dominated apps but remember it is being duobled in then some by the top speed chip...performance surely is not doubled!!!!

I think in some of those video apps it is obvious that bandwidth is the key...Th 1066 system bus is definitely the key to the EE performance in some of them. It also shows why some of use scoring near 8000 in sandra and at FX55 speed would likely even beat that 3.73ghz in a lot of those video test it wins now....

You comment on the one app that is actually really close...."Once again, you can see that the Pentium 4 truly excels in video encoding. If this is one of your primary uses for a PC, then it's obvious which way to go." HUH???? I mean maybe for one of the other test but not this one where the A64 giving up 1.13ghz and almost wins...Loses by 3% which is probably less considering you are fing with the FX55 by neutering the ram to a cas 3......

Actually after further thought I say go back and run the FX55 at cas 2 speeds like it should have been...i dont care what latencies the DDR2 needs to run at but at 400ddr cas 2 is pretty mainstream...I bet it wins some of the close ones and you have only manipulated or "spinned" the results.....

 

[Duvie]

http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-263-6.htm

Go to the bottom....

WTF!!! Where do you get that lame comment??? This shows either bias or a major clerical mistake....The FX55 wins all of the audio encoding up the page and loses this one to the older gallatin core by again 3% and you pull that comment out of your arse.....

Getting lamer by the moment!!!!

why does this happen???

http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-263-7.htm

Look at the top and ACDSee PowerPack 5.....Your numbers dont jive to the 2 other reviews...The FX55 is slower and yet the p4s are faster then the other reviews I read....Again likely due to the neutered cas 3 settings....

 

[lowlight]

You'll notice that in my comments, I don't spend a lot of time looking at the "Extreme" and "FX" results. These are $1000 CPU's that very few people are looking at. So while the Extreme may win some tests, and the FX may win others, what really matters is how the $150-250 CPU's perform. That's what the comments are based on.

You really have to ask yourself, WHY would I want to "manipulate" or "spin" anything? Not all of us are fanboys you know

 

[Zebo]

the P4 actually exceled in nearly every other test we could throw at it. Whether it's audio encoding, video encoding, multimedia apps, office apps, or productivity, the Pentium 4 consistently comes out on top.

??? Did you read your own benches. Here I'll break it down for you.

audio encoding
AMD wins
MP3
WMA
OGG

Intel wins
Music match by an insignifigant margin.

Office apps
Amd wins
Adobe Photoshop 7.0.1
Adobe Premiere 6.5
(we know who dominates winrar)

Intel wins
ACDSee
Ahead Software Nero Express 6.0.0.3
Winzip 8.1

Video Encoding
Intel wins all four but within 2% margin on each test to AMD. Again insignifigant.

Your conclusion does'nt jive with your test results. Best you can say is Intel's new P4's and EE's have parity with A64 in applications while A64 dominates gaming and math.

 

[Duvie]

If that is the case just do the review minus the bloated pigs...I agree they cost way too much...However it makes your comments seem way over the edge...Plus had you compared a comparable rpiced 3800 or some other mid range chips your comments would not have held true....

 

[Duvie]

You could have done the 4000+ which is comparable in price to the 660 and would have been close to the FX55 in performance...You could have done the 3800+ which is comparable in price to the 650 yet with it only lacking some l2 cache could have stolen the show for only 400 bucks!!!

By omiiting these ones and including the 150 dollar chip only and the 900+ chip you really left a lot of middle ground...

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: lowlight
You'll notice that in my comments, I don't spend a lot of time looking at the "Extreme" and "FX" results. These are $1000 CPU's that very few people are looking at. So while the Extreme may win some tests, and the FX may win others, what really matters is how the $150-250 CPU's perform. That's what the comments are based on.

You really have to ask yourself, WHY would I want to "manipulate" or "spin" anything? Not all of us are fanboys you know

Please... You don't even want to go there with price/performance... throw a $200 3400 (skt 754, 512MB Cached, newcastle@2.4[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]) in there. It will whoop any Intel processor under $400.

 

[friedrice]

I think the point is, the page doesn't really compare Intel to Athlon, or even Intel to older Intel procs. I find it pretty lame that only a 3000+ athlon64 was listed, and no faster athlon64 was that is closer to the price of these new Intel babies (not talking about the Extreme chip. Go toss in some Athlon chips that cost between $300-$500 and compare those to the new Intel. Then make a review. Thanks


Moral of the story, this is why you stick to web sites you know and trust, such as Anandtech. And this is why new and smaller sites fail.

 

[lowlight]

Want to buy me a 4000+?

Anyway, I am done 'defending' myself against you. There's no convincing someone who has already made up their mind, and only sees what they want to see. All other comments were great however, and I am happy to see what others have to say about my site.

 

[Zebo]

I don't spend a lot of time looking at the "Extreme" and "FX" results. These are $1000 CPU's that very few people are looking at.

You are HARDCOREWARE right? So with that in mind...they are what we overclock to.. so they provide very valueable information.

 

[Duvie]

I am sure many P4 fanboy ppl will love it...not so much for the numbers cause they dont relate to the words you were speaking, but for the comments themselves.....

You put in the big boys but negate them cause you think they cost too much...then you equate much costlier mid to high range chips versus the cheapest bottom of the line chip of the range..

Where the heck does the FX55 cost 1145???? I see it much cheaper at many sites....Damn talk about skewing the data...open up pricewatch once in awhile...It can be had at a reputable site like monarch for same price as the 3.73ghz P4.....and yes retail!!!


I would stop defending yourself as well....You are not doing a good job of it, frankly!!!

 

[zakee00]

guys...the point of the review is pretty much to compare the new 6xx to the older 5xx. he said "Thanks to Newegg.com for providing us with some AMD CPU's. This allows us to cover a much wider range of CPU's than we normally do in our 'first look' CPU coverage."
cut him some slack, even IF his results were totally off, any smart shopper will visit more then one review site...and i dont see anyone here that owns a review site
Nick

 

[Duvie]

how does the via board hampoer things as well???? Are not the NF 3 ultr and NF4 boards the best???

 

[friedrice]

Hey lowlight, I didn't mean to slam your page (i'm now asumming you are the maker of hardcoreware). You pretty much summed up the points well, Intel procs are good, but too expensive. The same story we've all been hearing for years now. I suppose what I am looking for is more of a direct comparison between brands of processors. Also on that thought, I posted this idea somewhere else too, but here goes.

What about comparing alike processors based on price. Meaning, Compare a Athlon64 3500+ to an Intel chip that costs the same ammount. I think price is what shines the true light. So ya, an Intel 3.5ghz chip is mighty speedy next to an athlon 3500+, but if you go by price, that P4 550 3.4ghz isn't going to be quite the challenge, especially in terms of features and overclockabilty.

After saying this, I go to Anandtech for two reasons. 1. Find out about the latest technology and how it works. 2. Find out how the new Geforce compares to the new Radeon. And if the article doesn't do either of those, well then, it isn't very much an article of interest to me.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: zakee00
guys...the point of the review is pretty much to compare the new 6xx to the older 5xx. he said "Thanks to Newegg.com for providing us with some AMD CPU's. This allows us to cover a much wider range of CPU's than we normally do in our 'first look' CPU coverage."
cut him some slack, even IF his results were totally off, any smart shopper will visit more then one review site...and i dont see anyone here that owns a review site
Nick

Only becuase I couldn't get all the things to test to do a PROPER REVIEW to fit with the comments and conclusions he has made....

The cas 3 setting is the kicker!!!