Why does Intel always fare better on THG compared to msot other sites?

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: xenos500

Originally posted by: Platinum321
THG is telling it as it is. THG purposely uses the best of each brand and does not purposely cripple any particular brand by using low quality parts because the other brand does not have the equivalent high quality components (ie: putting regular unleaded gas into a Ferrari because the Ford Focus can not take advantage of supreme unleaded). People have a natural tendency to see the underdogs rise above their competition and a lot of review sites want hits so they entertain this concept by putting favorable bias on the underdog's product.

THG is probably one of the best hardware review site there is w/ in depth analysis.

I agree, a lot

I feel sorry for you two. Just so you know, we are here to help. Friends don't let friends believe THG.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: gorillaman
Which can YOU buy right now. Are you going to pay 799 for the AMD? Huh?
I also like how DBZ went from "overclocked" to "Engineering Sample". That is all I needed to show
that you are not even sure what you mean with these posts. You have a desparate need to see AMD declared the
best. Its a sick thing dude. Just listen to yourself "and your psychologist".

I have made my point DBZ whether you choose to believe it or not. Credibility is completely lost when you change what you say. All it takes is one time.

Later.

Bwhahaha. I thought you knew that by saying Engineering Sample he meant that you are able to change the multipliers. THAT explains your FSB issue. He was right in saying that, he wasn't changing his mind. You are the one with the problem here.

 

Dude, I hope you read my full post because it seems your suffering from the same delusional fantasy.
What is your problem exactly? No wait, I dont have that much time..

Ok then, forget everything I said for a moment.... Answer one question for us if you are big enough. Are you
pissed that the A64FX did not slaughter the P4 like all AMD fanboys have been preaching for the past thousand years?
I could care less who is faster really. It is just a rip to see you guys squirm about it. You my friend, are my comedy relief for the evening. Anyway, I think Intel did the right thing. Just to keep AMD at bay until their next cpu spins out.

And the title of this thread can go both ways. It could also read, " Why does AMD always fare better on Anandtech compared to most other sites?

GM

 

AND!!! Where did THG get this "bad rap" anyways? What scandalous behavior led to these accusations?
Or did it just materialize in some thread somewhere and grew out of control... I think it's the latter.

GM

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: gorillaman
Dude, I hope you read my full post because it seems your suffering from the same delusional fantasy.
What is your problem exactly? No wait, I dont have that much time..

Ok then, forget everything I said for a moment.... Answer one question for us if you are big enough. Are you
pissed that the A64FX did not slaughter the P4 like all AMD fanboys have been preaching for the past thousand years?
I could care less who is faster really. It is just a rip to see you guys squirm about it. You my friend, are my comedy relief for the evening. Anyway, I think Intel did the right thing. Just to keep AMD at bay until their next cpu spins out.

And the title of this thread can go both ways. It could also read, " Why does AMD always fare better on Anandtech compared to most other sites?

GM

I read the post, you were confused as to why he said overclocking then engineering sample. You were simply wrong. My problems is purely with you and THG. Me answer one of your questions while at the same time you attempt to insult me? Am I big enough? Jesus. I suggest you grow up at least a little bit more before trying to engage in civil conversation.

Fact is, compared to the norm (being the rest of the A64 reviews), THG has skewed results and is downright biased towards Intel. If you can't see that, you are more blind than any AMD fanboy in here. You need to comprehend the difference between a fanboy and someone who just KNOWS more. You may think I am a fanboy, simply because I am not saying the 'P4EE OWNZ' or 'THG is my daddy', but I am not biased in any way at all. I build both Intel systems, and AMD systems.

Let me ask YOU a question. Do you think competition is good or bad for us consumers? I hope you said good, and inthat case why would you want Intel to "keep AMD at bay"? Dipsh!t. Intel obviously isn't the one hurting financially, therefore Id rather see AMD gain marketshare and make some money.

And no it couldn't you fscking retard. Did you read the review on the Anandtech page? No bias here. You are just as much of an Intel fanboy as any of these supposed AMD fanboys here, realize that.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: gorillaman
AND!!! Where did THG get this "bad rap" anyways? What scandalous behavior led to these accusations?
Or did it just materialize in some thread somewhere and grew out of control... I think it's the latter.

GM

Again, only further showing your ignorance. Search the other forums around (HardOCP, etc). You will see.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: gorillaman
Which can YOU buy right now. Are you going to pay 799 for the AMD? Huh?
I also like how DBZ went from "overclocked" to "Engineering Sample". That is all I needed to show
that you are not even sure what you mean with these posts. You have a desparate need to see AMD declared the
best. Its a sick thing dude. Just listen to yourself "and your psychologist".

I have made my point DBZ whether you choose to believe it or not. Credibility is completely lost when you change what you say. All it takes is one time.

Later.

Actually, I found it quite clear because DivideBYZero was right on both accounts. Tom's P4 EE is BOTH an Engineering Sample and overclocked in the tests. He had it multiplier unlocked so he could do not only 16X200 for 3.2 GHz, but also 17X200 and 18X200. Since 3.4Ghz and 3.6Ghz is above the stock 3.2 on that chip, that is called overclocking. Perhaps this tells us something about the P4 EE (maybe it will come multiplier unlocked after all), but regardless this is pretty irresponsible. He should keep both the P4 EE and Athlon 64/FX at stock speed, and then show us overclocked potential somewhere else. There is absolutely no reason to throw overclocked (non-existing) results into the main result table, and make AMD look worse. Or, if he must have overclocked chips in the table, push both CPU's to their limits.

Can you not see the spin THG puts on the Athlon 64? Instead of comparing it to just the 3.2 EE (which itself is a paper launch) he further makes the A64 look slow by bumping up the clock on his P4. While the P4 EE will never be a mainstream chip, the Athlon64 will be. The Athlon 64 will probably get massive price cuts and some speed bumps in the next couple of months (being the mainstream 64-bit Athlon chip) while in that same time frame the P4EE will just be getting out the door.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: gorillaman
Which ....psychologist".

I have made ....Later.

Actually, I found it quite clear because DivideBYZero was right on both accounts. Tom's P4 EE is BOTH an Engineering Sample and overclocked...... The Athlon 64 will probably get massive price cuts and some speed bumps in the next couple of months (being the mainstream 64-bit Athlon chip) while in that same time frame the P4EE will just be getting out the door.

Amen!

 

[DarkMask]

Ok gorrillaz, u better stop now coz you're looking like an idiot. The P4 EE is ONLY being released in a 3.2 ghz config for the foreseeable future. They are TOYING AROUND with idea of releasing 3.4 ghz and 3.6 ghz editions of the EE for the prescott chip this winter. While the 3.4 ghz and 3.6 ghz processors perform admirably, you cannot deny that THG is skewing results as they DID NOT include any FX-51 overclocked results. Look at the results with the tru to be released 3.2 ghz EE and fx-51, and the EE either ties or falls behind in the benchmarks. Its that simple. Also, look at the cpu forums on t-break, and u will find that the single channel athlon 64 3200+ oc'd to 2.4 ghz scores 24,000+ pts. oc to 2.6 ghz? 26000+ pts. In fact, the athlon 64 (single channel) currently (or last time i checked) holds the record in 3dmark 2001.

So quit looking like a dumbass, plz.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

I just added THG to my hosts file pointing to "0.0.0.0". What an Intel biased site! Even the AMD-biased site AMDZone doesn't stoop that low.

 

[Jeff7181]

wish the A64 could be overclocked to 3.4ghz.. coughs* 29k 3dmark?.

Only 29k? what are you smoking? at 2.6 it score 26,000+ ... at 3.4 I'd expect EASILY over 30,000 , probably closer to 32 or 33 as long as the video card doesn't hold it back.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

wish the A64 could be overclocked to 3.4ghz.. coughs* 29k 3dmark?.

Only 29k? what are you smoking? at 2.6 it score 26,000+ ... at 3.4 I'd expect EASILY over 30,000 , probably closer to 32 or 33 as long as the video card doesn't hold it back.

Tom wouldn't benchmark an Athlon64 at 3.4 GHz unless he found an Intel P4 @ 5 Ghz or some such to make it look bad...

 

[orion7144]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

wish the A64 could be overclocked to 3.4ghz.. coughs* 29k 3dmark?.

Only 29k? what are you smoking? at 2.6 it score 26,000+ ... at 3.4 I'd expect EASILY over 30,000 , probably closer to 32 or 33 as long as the video card doesn't hold it back.

Tom wouldn't benchmark an Athlon64 at 3.4 GHz unless he found an Intel P4 @ 5 Ghz or some such to make it look bad...

FYI Tom does not do the reviews anymore

 

[BDSM]

Wow.. lots of posts while I was at work... Anyway.. I've had a little more time to study the benchmarks closer.

Take unreal tournament for instance.. At aces it's all amd at the top. At thg the 3.2 ghz EE beats the A 64 3200+ while at aces even the 3.4 ghz EE can't do this.. Ofcourse the benchmarks aren't entirely identical.. However it is the same game.. So what makes thg choose somethign that favors intel.. (btw xbit labs tests puts the fx 51 @ 22 % faster than the 3.2 ee while in toms test it's onl about 2.1% faster...)

Personally I don't know but it seems to mr that this sort of conduct is quite common at thg... take The X2 game for instance.. On aces the 2.2 ghz fx comes out on top of the the 3.2 ghz ee while at thg it is beaten by the same.
The only difference between these set ups is that thg has shadows disabled... I wonder what made them disable the shadows.. Do ppl usually play games with shadows turned off these days?
I don't play any games myself at all except online chess so I wouldn't know.. But shadows ought to be ncie to have in a game.

Anyway.. I'm no amd fan boy.. I just buy what I like best (and that has historically mostly been intel stuff).

This thread was about thg.. not intel vs amd and amd ppl versus intel ppl.. I just think that there are in my opinion many things that indicate that thg chooses his benchmarks to make intel look good and jduging by ppls reactions to his review I am not alone.

If I wasn't so tired I would find more "proof". but now is bed time for me.

 

[Aegion]

Originally posted by: Platinum321

THG is probably one of the best hardware review site there is w/ in depth analysis.

You mean like this brilliant comment?

Companies such as ID Software, who are responsible for titles like Quake3 and Unreal Tournament 2003, are not ready to jump onto the 64-bit bandwagon.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_64-12.html#not_yet_available_software_for_64_bits

Two major problems with this statement.

1. Unreal Tournament 2003 was made by Epic, not Id Software.

2. UT2003 was a premier product that AMD was showing off as a 64bit application running under SUSE linux on the Opteron when it was released, and the head developer Tim Sweney has already talked about adding 64-bit software support for Windows as soon as the 64 bit version is released.

Observation taken from this Slashdot comment after independent confirmation that Tom has made that statement, and has not even bothered to fix it yet.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Aegion

Originally posted by: Platinum321

THG is probably one of the best hardware review site there is w/ in depth analysis.

You mean like this brilliant comment?

Companies such as ID Software, who are responsible for titles like Quake3 and Unreal Tournament 2003, are not ready to jump onto the 64-bit bandwagon.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_64-12.html#not_yet_available_software_for_64_bits

Two major problems with this statement.

1. Unreal Tournament 2003 was made by Epic, not Id Software.

2. UT2003 was a premier product that AMD was showing off as a 64bit application running under SUSE linux on the Opteron when it was released, and the head developer Tim Sweney has already talked about adding 64-bit software support for Windows as soon as the 64 bit version is released.

Observation taken from this Slashdot comment after independent confirmation that Tom has made that statement, and has not even bothered to fix it yet.

Great post! :beer:

As to the thread topic, UberTom is promoting his agenda, not the computer enthusiast's and "in depth technical analysis" means precisely dick if the data is manipulated to obtain results that are skewed

 

[BDSM]

I just noticed that tom uses 2-2-2-5 on the p4 config while he uses 2.0-3-3-6 on the Ahtlon XP config.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_64-20.html

The A64 and FX 2.5-3-3-6 and CL2.0-4-4-8...

Now.. I don't know for a fact that these boards can run stable with tigher timings than this I do know that several nforce 2 platforms (including my own nf7-s) are able to run at 2-2-2-5 at ease.. Though ofcourse best performance is attained at 2-2-2-11.

So.. why would dear old tom use slow timings on the Xp? Ofcourse the 3200+ XP can't threat the newer cpu's but this is in my opinion another indication on the pro intel conduct at thg!!

Also.. why the fk would you publish scores running the FX with async DDR 200!!?!? (not 200 mhz but 100 mhz!!) That is a config that will never EVER be used by ANYONE ever on this planet.. Except for tom that is in his effort to make the fx appear lower in his charts!

This review stinks more and mroe the more I study it.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: BDSM
I just noticed that tom uses 2-2-2-5 on the p4 config while he uses 2.0-3-3-6 on the Ahtlon XP config.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_64-20.html

The A64 and FX 2.5-3-3-6 and CL2.0-4-4-8...

Now.. I don't know for a fact that these boards can run stable with tigher timings than this I do know that several nforce 2 platforms (including my own nf7-s) are able to run at 2-2-2-5 at ease.. Though ofcourse best performance is attained at 2-2-2-11.

So.. why would dear old tom use slow timings on the Xp? Ofcourse the 3200+ XP can't threat the newer cpu's but this is in my opinion another indication on the pro intel conduct at thg!!

Also.. why the fk would you publish scores running the FX with async DDR 200!!?!? (not 200 mhz but 100 mhz!!) That is a config that will never EVER be used by ANYONE ever on this planet.. Except for tom that is in his effort to make the fx appear lower in his charts!

This review stinks more and mroe the more I study it.

I second that. Even the Athlon XP chips are run at 2-2-2-6 (below the P4's 2-2-2-5). It's little marginal things like that where the P4 gets a slight edge and every little bit adds up. Then he runs the Athlon 64 and FX at 100, 133 and 166 Mhz Memory clocks for god know's what reason. The P4 sticks to 200 Mhz in most configurations (and all of the P4 EE tests).

Plus, why is he using a GeForce FX 5900 anyways? It's pretty unanimous that the 9800 is the card to test with.

Why is he using DirectX 9.0a and not the newer 9.0b version?

On and on and on... if anyone needs a reason for why Tom's integrity gets put into question time and time again, this is yet another shining example.

Originally posted by: gorillaman
AND!!! Where did THG get this "bad rap" anyways? What scandalous behavior led to these accusations?
Or did it just materialize in some thread somewhere and grew out of control... I think it's the latter.

GM

Do you really want to know? Tom wrote an article where he took a P4 engineering sample and overclocked it hard to preview upcoming P4 speed. However, he said he got the real thing from Intel (months in advance), yet his photos of the P4 were doctored in Photoshop for his article (this was proven).

 

[Platinum321]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Platinum321
THG is telling it as it is. THG purposely uses the best of each brand and does not purposely cripple any particular brand by using low quality parts because the other brand does not have the equivalent high quality components (ie: putting regular unleaded gas into a Ferrari because the Ford Focus can not take advantage of supreme unleaded). People have a natural tendency to see the underdogs rise above their competition and a lot of review sites want hits so they entertain this concept by putting favorable bias on the underdog's product.

THG is probably one of the best hardware review site there is w/ in depth analysis.

Hi Tom... so you do make it to AnandTech's boards every now and then huh?

Hi guys, it's Tom again. How's everyone doing today? After reading some of your post, I think I will go ahead and make modifications to my review. I appologize for angering the AMD fanboys and will try to be as unbiased as possible so that you guys do not boycott me. I agree that the A-64 is a great accomplishment. But you can believe me when I say this, Yamhill will cause total destruction if there is any success in the 64 bit front. Take care my techy comrades. And please tune in next time when I do my review on A64 vs PSC (aka:yamhill in disguise).

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Hi guys, it's Tom again. How's everyone doing today? After reading some of your post, I think I will go ahead and make modifications to my review. I appologize for angering the AMD fanboys and will try to be as unbiased as possible so that you guys do not boycott me. I agree that the A-64 is a great accomplishment. But you can believe me when I say this, Yamhill will cause total destruction if there is any success in the 64 bit front. Take care my techy comrades. And please tune in next time when I do my review on A64 vs PSC (aka:yamhill in disguise).

The Irony is that Tom actually did use to come here and troll back in a day :disgust:

 

Can someone please give me the definition of the word "troll".. An example would be great.
TIA

GM

 

[Platinum321]

Originally posted by: gorillaman
Can someone please give me the definition of the word "troll".. An example would be great.
TIA

GM

troll2 (tr½l) n. A supernatural creature of Scandinavian folklore, variously portrayed as a friendly or mischievous dwarf or as a giant, that lives in caves, in the hills, or under bridges.

actually.. it's generally someone who post for the sheer pleasure of getting replies. oops. .gtg

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: gorillaman
Can someone please give me the definition of the word "troll".. An example would be great.
TIA

GM

Here ya go my simian colleague
comprehensive list of definitons for Troll I was using it in the context of the first definition.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: gorillaman
Can someone please give me the definition of the word "troll".. An example would be great.
TIA

GM

I see you have lost. Thank you for doing it graciously by not throwing more attacks out there. Bravo.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The THW is not bad, but he kinda confused the issue by including Overclocked P4EE scores. So the P4EE looks to be the clear winner, but if you ignore the overclocked benches the P4EE fairs about as well as most other AthlonFX/64 vs P4EE reviews, which is, not quite as good, but certainly better than a P4 3.2ghz.

I agree I always look past the oced chips and focus the non oced chips.....

I have to say he went above and beyond to show as many different programs to show it wasn't just one optimization in one program...

The conclusion are still as correct as the other site and you should take this as one sites opinion and read multiple sites and figure your real world performance is somewhere averaged between them (with so many possible system configurations whch can effect performance).....


Undisputed conclusion in this and most all sites....

AMD A64 3200+ is better at gaming with the FX even better then p4 3.2ghz and mostly all p4ee 3.2ghz....

AMD A64 3200+ and FX still fail to surpass intel in a wdie range of multimedia and rendering programs...


For me the latter means more as I do not play games!!!!!