Since the opinion of many (notably Zebo whom i have great respect for ;) )...

[dug777]

I mean on the surface it appears quite reasonably conducted....but the P-M does 'lay the smack down' on the Turion in the review, as i have said before...is the bias inferred from other reviews that have produced a different result?

Cheers,

Dug.

 

[dug777]

come on folks, you were all very quick to nail the reviews in the other thread
lay it out for me...

 

[Viditor]

The GamePC review has a woeful stench to it...
First, open these 2 links and compare the numbers

Turion and PM comparison
Pentium EE review

Notice how the stock Pentium-M blows the P4EE (overclocked to 4.0) out of the water on the same benchmark? In fact, it is almost identical to an FX-55!
Somehow, I'm dubious...

Second, in the power usage comparison, note that the Turion is using a full desktop chipset, while the P-M is using a mobile chipset...

All in all, I think I'll wait till someone more reputable does the review...

 

[clarkey01]

Screw um, we know the score, we know where to look.

Still, even if they made Turion look like an FX on steriods, what would of it done ? Nothing I suspect, yes the moral of screwing the numbers to give a more biased out come is wrong.

I cant come out and say "Intel bought them off" without any proof, I dont think any one us can, even though we'r right theres somthing fishy with the numbers, end of the day we cant do jack.

If and when I decide I need a laptop, I'll go to here, check the numbers, check the prices and walla, bang to buck, priceerformance = AMD nearly every time.

Notice how the Intel workers didnt say anything in these threads concerning the review.

Like they care anyway, as long as it has an Intel sticker on it, it'll sell by the millions.

Ppl like Zebo,Duive, Dapunisher dig very hard and contribute alot to these forums and are always will to give advice when asked, I'd rather back them up then and believe them over any "Stiffed Review".

Its not like I am anti Intel, I have a 2.8 C manchine I use for heavy multitasking, no way can my athlon run CS, Norton and burn without lagging.

End of the day you got to laugh at it all.

 

[Brunnis]

Originally posted by: Viditor
Second, in the power usage comparison, note that the Turion is using a full desktop chipset, while the P-M is using a mobile chipset...

Not only that, but they actually ran the Turion on much higher core voltage than it's specified for. The MT-34 has a default vcore of 1.2V, yet GamePC pumped it up to 1.35V, effectively making it output as much heat as the 35W ML-34. This is a quite serious mistake when reviewing two CPUs that are geared towards the low power market.

I've mailed them about the problem, so I'll get back as soon as (or if) I get an answer.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Brunnis

Originally posted by: Viditor
Second, in the power usage comparison, note that the Turion is using a full desktop chipset, while the P-M is using a mobile chipset...

Not only that, but they actually ran the Turion on much higher core voltage than it's specified for. The MT-34 has a default vcore of 1.2V, yet GamePC pumped it up to 1.35V, effectively making it output as much heat as the 35W ML-34. This is a quite serious mistake when reviewing two CPUs that are geared towards the low power market.

I've mailed them about the problem, so I'll get back as soon as (or if) I get an answer.

I'd be very surprised if they did get back to you, and even then it will only be fluff.

 

[68GTX]

How do they do it? Well, many reviewers use custom multimedia, rendering, and gaming timedemos, and the results can vary depending on the file/scene being rendered, and the resolution & quality settings being used.

I never expected a 2.0GHz 1MB Cache Turion would be a strong performer in comparison to a 533MHz FSB 2.13GHz 2MB Cache Pentium-M.

AMD & Intel systems can both be held back by playing with memory timings, and picking an application, or timedemo which favors a particular Mobo/CPU/Memory/Graphics combination.

Failure to NORMALIZE variables & poor documentation of EXACT system configuration & testing methodology is an ongoing problem.

Some review sites make their custom timedemos available for download, so as long as they publish the exact settings used, the results should be reproducible within a small margin of error.

 

[clarkey01]

Maybe the pentium M is a better chip, despite the stiffing. Any of you think of that ?

 

[Leper Messiah]

^^ could be true, but the their benches don't match up with other benchies.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: clarkey01
Maybe the pentium M is a better chip, despite the stiffing. Any of you think of that ?

That could certainly be true...but nothing in this review is going to determine that either way...

 

[Duvie]

Well all I can say is that the media and stuff generally on pgs 9-13 are not that far off and can be attributed to merely the use of a single controller 3400+, older NF3 chipset, and using cas 3-3-3- timings (which are pathetic and lowest grade of pc3200 available)....


The games seem waaaaayyyy off thouhg. Since I dont game I am not a vast expert here...what I can comment on is that in this review versus others all the chips are running 533fsb but now coupled with DDR400 whereas in techReport's review while they showed a 2.4ghz and it was merely an overclocked 2.0ghz (755) it was running a 533fsb but still only 333ddr...My guess is that in games that like bandwidth this could have made a difference...Though I dont by the delta they show.....Couple in the same crap above with the 3400+ and that may explain some of it.


What this amounts to is an biased review and when that happens it is easy to pick favorable apps and dump the ones that dont look good...Slight Bios neutering, know the INtel architecture cares less about cas timings and more about banwidth and yuo have a quick way to unlevel the playing field.....


One things some of you need to realize is AT did a great review on using a Dothan on a desktop platform with an adapter (sckt 478 to sckt 479) and it still didn't do this well and I believe they were pushing dual channel ddr400...Vey suspect...

 

[Lithan]

I'd wager they simply pulled the game results right out of their asses. There is no chance in a million years that a 1.6ghz Dothan performs on par, and in some tests beats by a huge margin a 2.2ghz A64. Other results I don't know enough about the benches, but there is zero chance that their game results are legitimate.

 

[dug777]

naughty pple at GamePC

tsk tsk!

Other than AT who else is trusted as a CPU reviewer?
i quite espect THG but i hear they are not exactly fair in their treatment of AMD these days, using Via chipsets and the like...?

 

[Duvie]

TechReport.com is very good....They call it like it is...They bashed the P4 early one...then based the Barton and the ridiculous PR rating as it got spanked by the P4c...now they bash the INtel P4 prescotts as the A64's take the lead.....They call them like they are....

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: dug777
naughty pple at GamePC

tsk tsk!

Other than AT who else is trusted as a CPU reviewer?
i quite espect THG but i hear they are not exactly fair in their treatment of AMD these days, using Via chipsets and the like...?

I've found similar discrepencies at THG, though I haven't read them in many months (who knows, they MIGHT have changed...).
XBit, AcesHardware, Sudhian, and of course ArsTechnica are (IMHO) the best of the lot...
Of those, the 2 I always read first (after AT) are Aces and Ars...the 3 "A"s are always on my list...

 

[Lithan]

I believe that most sites are reliable as long as they are thorough in specs and setup of their test beds. After that I just look for any glaring irregularities.

 

[Gamingphreek]

That review is scewed. Remember the A64 still has less instructions than the Pentium-M. Additionally it is a desktop chip running at full speed, with extensions and everything. 1mb of L2 cache isn't going to increas framerate by 50fps, you cant hold 1/100th of that in 1mb of cache.

They are definitely scewed.

-Kevin

 

[irwincur]

GamePC is a retail establishment. Everyone knows that Intel products carry much better margins than AMD products. There, all the incentive you need. They make more money off of Intel sales, therefore, they have a reason to puff them up.

Another reason why I think we are still mssing a lot of dual core Opteron reviews. It seems as if they day AMD finally once and for all kicked the crap out of Inte, damn near all of the review sites too a short vacation - albiet to intsall their new Xeon web servers that were sent the day before.

 

[fbrdphreak]

I can't speak to desktop performance, but we'll have one of the Acer Turion laptops in our labs soon for review. Unfortunately it will have integrated graphics

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
I can't speak to desktop performance, but we'll have one of the Acer Turion laptops in our labs soon for review. Unfortunately it will have integrated graphics

Not using a notebook for gaming I actually prefer reviews with IGP since I get a perfect indication of battery life. Besides if it is the ATI it is damned good for IGP too, and powerplay is nice.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Not using a notebook for gaming I actually prefer reviews with IGP since I get a perfect indication of battery life. Besides if it is the ATI it is damned good for IGP too, and powerplay is nice.

Unfortunately the Acer uses an SiS chipset. I too cannot wait to the see the ATI Xpress200M chipset w/Turion, A-Team Goodness

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak

Not using a notebook for gaming I actually prefer reviews with IGP since I get a perfect indication of battery life. Besides if it is the ATI it is damned good for IGP too, and powerplay is nice.

Unfortunately the Acer uses an SiS chipset. I too cannot wait to the see the ATI Xpress200M chipset w/Turion, A-Team Goodness

Well at least the media playback and TV out should be nice. That is about all I use notebook video for anywho, maybe some old UT, HL, QIII that sort of thing when out&about but I don't care about it running HL2 or D3

BTW, still have the old ATI 320M and very happy with it after 2 1/2 yrs.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Asus should have some X600/X700 based Turions out for those who do want to game

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Asus should have some X600/X700 based Turions out for those who do want to game

Oh yeah. I would be more interested int he ATI though, good bat life and decent gaming from a fairly budget lappy is what I would like

Just can't justify upgrading the one I got since a 2000+ and 320M is good for what I do with it

 

[fbrdphreak]

I hear ya.
If ATI's HyperMemory is all its hyped up to be, it'll take competition from nvidia in the mobile chipset market to provide a challenge against 'em