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

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: 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!!!!!

You, being a P4 fan, hit it right on the spot. Bravo! . That is what I mean by being non-biased. No one CPU is better than the other; just depends on what you use your computer for.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 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!!!!!

True, but throw some 64bit benchies, done in a few reviews, in there and you may need to reconsider. When that option becomes available anyway.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: 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!!!!!

True, but throw some 64bit benchies, done in a few reviews, in there and you may need to reconsider. When that option becomes available anyway.

exactly!!! i will cross that bridge when I can buy the OS software, the application optimized for 64bit, anf full 64bit driver support for all my hardware....Got a timetable on this???

Time will always tell...I don't count on promises only when it is delivered....I don't like the p4ee even being done in the reviews and possible fx since you cannot purchase one right now....I hate paper launches.

 

[wicktron]

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.

Dude. I want some of the stuff that you're on. Hook me up!!!

 

[draco8099]

You guys should reread the articale, looks like he updated it with the following.

"Update Sept 24,2003: Unfortunately we have made a mistake in the original article: In addition to the official P4 EE 3.2GHz we had included benchmark scores of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz. These values were planned for a future THG article and were not intended to be included here. We would like to apologize especially to those readers who misinterpreted our charts. The two bars of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz have now been removed. However, this issue does not affect our conclusion as we have only compared the official P4 3.2GHz EE to all other test candidates in our original article. For your information: The press sample of the P4 Extreme provided by Intel does not have a multiplier lock and is already designed for higher clock speeds. "

Also all fan boys from both sides need to take a cold shower, if you actually look at the graphs and draw your own conclusions it says that one cpu is good for some things and the other is good at other things.

 

[wicktron]

Originally posted by: draco8099
You guys should reread the articale, looks like he updated it with the following.

"Update Sept 24,2003: Unfortunately we have made a mistake in the original article: In addition to the official P4 EE 3.2GHz we had included benchmark scores of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz. These values were planned for a future THG article and were not intended to be included here. We would like to apologize especially to those readers who misinterpreted our charts. The two bars of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz have now been removed. However, this issue does not affect our conclusion as we have only compared the official P4 3.2GHz EE to all other test candidates in our original article. For your information: The press sample of the P4 Extreme provided by Intel does not have a multiplier lock and is already designed for higher clock speeds. "

Also all fan boys from both sides need to take a cold shower, if you actually look at the graphs and draw your own conclusions it says that one cpu is good for some things and the other is good at other things.

Too bad the people who are exclusively THG readers have already made their minds up and will likely not revisit the article in the near future.

 

[BDSM]

Hey Wicktron.. I did revisit the article. It's a good thing that they pulled back some of the oc'd ee numbers.
This essentially shows, in my opinion that even they themselves have realised how biased this review looked and they do apologise for their misstake.

Though they must have forgotten about:
SPECviewperf 7.1 drv-09, 3d mark 2001, x2 demo, main concept chart.. and on pc mark 2003..
So I emailed them and let them know the 3.4 ee and 3.6 ee scores are still in those charts..


Also.. I know someone else already asked this. But why use a separate 94 dollar sata card?! ALL the Athlon64 AND FX boards that are available and in stock here in Sweden now have integrated sata! They do NOT however have sata RAID.. Something that the intel platform has in this case.

Wtf!! Do we test new cpu's with raid?!? Raid is something that probably less than 5% of the enthusiast crowd uses and very close 0% of the total crowd uses! Anyone seen any other site use raid setup to test these new cpu's? Let me know when you do.

Ofcourse thg just saw another opportunity to favor intel since using raid would add to the amd price and make it look less attractive!


And again.. why use the Asus board for benchmarking the regular Athlon xp?! For a few extra bucks you get An ABit nf7-s WITH sata raid and I can garantee that it will run 2-2-2-5 AND perform better!

Speaking of memory.. Why does the Athlon XP and athlong 64 need more expensive memory than the Intel setup?!? Come on.. this is so fkn stupid!

The athlon xp ad athlon 64 can use the same unbuffered ram as the intel setup does.

Ofcourse according to thg using tigh timings caused troubles with both the xp and a64.

1. If they had problems with the Axp why not change the mobo?!? No they opted for one of the oldest and worst performing boards out there!

2. Aces hardware amings others had no problems running the A 64 on a via board @ 2-3-3-7.. Same timings as the p4 setup btw!!

As far as I know.. when benchmarking two competing components you would want to make sure that you isolate the performance from the other components in each setup. So why use sata raid and different memory timings?!

Last but not least.. the p4 setup runs the memory @ 2-2-2-5.. This is Corsair memory.. Either twin X 3500 or 3200 and according to Corsairs homepage NONE of their memory modules are speced at 2-2-2-5 @ 200 mhz!! (link included on the bottom of the page)

So.. the Intel setup ran overclocked during the Whole Friggin Test (!!!!) while the amd systems (the fx excluded) were ALL essentially underclocked!

Howabout that peeps!!! They need to rerun every single benchmark to make it right!

Oh yeah. one more thing. Did you notice that the first test of the whole review, Quake 3 Arena gets three sub tests! Something no other game gets!

I wonder why.. Could it be because the p4 excels in this game?

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: Duvie

exactly!!! i will cross that bridge when I can buy the OS software, the application optimized for 64bit, anf full 64bit driver support for all my hardware....Got a timetable on this???

Time will always tell...I don't count on promises only when it is delivered....I don't like the p4ee even being done in the reviews and possible fx since you cannot purchase one right now....I hate paper launches.

Actually, the bulk of the performance difference between the x86-64 based processors and their vanilla x86 counterparts will come (in the short term) from the double register count you get on the processor, and not from application optimization, 64 bit support, etc., etc.. At any rate, if you are almost strictly linux user (like myself), most of the work is done already, so the timetable was the launch date. It's a matter of recompiling the kernel for your target architecture, and then any software that you want 'optimized' for it as well.

The trick now will be for AMD to get one or more of the major OEMs to sign on and start releasing Athlon64 based machines. I think this will be key to garnering developer support from big software companies.

On the point of paper launches, I couldn't agree with you more. It seems to be acceptable by both of the big players in the desktop PC industry at any rate.

 

[Duvie]

Actually the FX is available so strike that from my comments....

However I was erading an article on 64bit in UT2003 and heard that in cases the score got worse an they speculated that hardware drivers need to be optimized for 64bit.....I think full 64bit implementation is further off then most want to concede. Also it is hard for the industry to jump when the guy leading it has less then 20% market share, right???

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: draco8099
You guys should reread the articale, looks like he updated it with the following.

"Update Sept 24,2003: Unfortunately we have made a mistake in the original article: In addition to the official P4 EE 3.2GHz we had included benchmark scores of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz. These values were planned for a future THG article and were not intended to be included here. We would like to apologize especially to those readers who misinterpreted our charts. The two bars of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz have now been removed. However, this issue does not affect our conclusion as we have only compared the official P4 3.2GHz EE to all other test candidates in our original article. For your information: The press sample of the P4 Extreme provided by Intel does not have a multiplier lock and is already designed for higher clock speeds. "

Also all fan boys from both sides need to take a cold shower, if you actually look at the graphs and draw your own conclusions it says that one cpu is good for some things and the other is good at other things.

Boy, I didn't see this coming

. When will Tom learn?

 

[GoHAnSoN]

lol TGH is one of the bias website.
on the contrary, AT is one of the non-bias ones.

just my 2 cents.

 

[Zebo]

whatever, I remember just a short year ago or two Tom was said to be biased twards AMD. How times change.

 

[DarkMask]

at least tom did apologize for his mistakes.

 

[orion7144]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: draco8099
You guys should reread the articale, looks like he updated it with the following.

"Update Sept 24,2003: Unfortunately we have made a mistake in the original article: In addition to the official P4 EE 3.2GHz we had included benchmark scores of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz. These values were planned for a future THG article and were not intended to be included here. We would like to apologize especially to those readers who misinterpreted our charts. The two bars of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz have now been removed. However, this issue does not affect our conclusion as we have only compared the official P4 3.2GHz EE to all other test candidates in our original article. For your information: The press sample of the P4 Extreme provided by Intel does not have a multiplier lock and is already designed for higher clock speeds. "

Also all fan boys from both sides need to take a cold shower, if you actually look at the graphs and draw your own conclusions it says that one cpu is good for some things and the other is good at other things.

Boy, I didn't see this coming

. When will Tom learn?

If the bolded statement above is true than Intel will get another notch in their cap. No mult. lock and "already designed for higher clock speeds".

Not to mention the software app they are releasing for their MB's allowing them to be OC'd.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: orion7144

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: draco8099
You guys should reread the articale, looks like he updated it with the following.

"Update Sept 24,2003: Unfortunately we have made a mistake in the original article: In addition to the official P4 EE 3.2GHz we had included benchmark scores of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz. These values were planned for a future THG article and were not intended to be included here. We would like to apologize especially to those readers who misinterpreted our charts. The two bars of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz have now been removed. However, this issue does not affect our conclusion as we have only compared the official P4 3.2GHz EE to all other test candidates in our original article. For your information: The press sample of the P4 Extreme provided by Intel does not have a multiplier lock and is already designed for higher clock speeds. "

Also all fan boys from both sides need to take a cold shower, if you actually look at the graphs and draw your own conclusions it says that one cpu is good for some things and the other is good at other things.

Boy, I didn't see this coming

. When will Tom learn?

If the bolded statement above is true than Intel will get another notch in their cap. No mult. lock and "already designed for higher clock speeds".

Not to mention the software app they are releasing for their MB's allowing them to be OC'd.

Don't count on it. Intel has given unlocked engineering processors for Preview in the past, each time people began to think that maybe the Multiplier was going to be unlocked. Once Final product shipped however, they came locked.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: orion7144

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: draco8099
You guys should reread the articale, looks like he updated it with the following.

"Update Sept 24,2003: Unfortunately we have made a mistake in the original article: In addition to the official P4 EE 3.2GHz we had included benchmark scores of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz. These values were planned for a future THG article and were not intended to be included here. We would like to apologize especially to those readers who misinterpreted our charts. The two bars of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz have now been removed. However, this issue does not affect our conclusion as we have only compared the official P4 3.2GHz EE to all other test candidates in our original article. For your information: The press sample of the P4 Extreme provided by Intel does not have a multiplier lock and is already designed for higher clock speeds. "

Also all fan boys from both sides need to take a cold shower, if you actually look at the graphs and draw your own conclusions it says that one cpu is good for some things and the other is good at other things.

Boy, I didn't see this coming

. When will Tom learn?

If the bolded statement above is true than Intel will get another notch in their cap. No mult. lock and "already designed for higher clock speeds".

Not to mention the software app they are releasing for their MB's allowing them to be OC'd.

Don't count on it. Intel has given unlocked engineering processors for Preview in the past, each time people began to think that maybe the Multiplier was going to be unlocked. Once Final product shipped however, they came locked.

EXACTLY. Orion - If you believe for ONE second that Intel has decided to unlock the multiplier on the new p4s then you are extremely ignorant.

 

[DarkMask]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: orion7144

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: draco8099
You guys should reread the articale, looks like he updated it with the following.

"Update Sept 24,2003: Unfortunately we have made a mistake in the original article: In addition to the official P4 EE 3.2GHz we had included benchmark scores of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz. These values were planned for a future THG article and were not intended to be included here. We would like to apologize especially to those readers who misinterpreted our charts. The two bars of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz have now been removed. However, this issue does not affect our conclusion as we have only compared the official P4 3.2GHz EE to all other test candidates in our original article. For your information: The press sample of the P4 Extreme provided by Intel does not have a multiplier lock and is already designed for higher clock speeds. "

Also all fan boys from both sides need to take a cold shower, if you actually look at the graphs and draw your own conclusions it says that one cpu is good for some things and the other is good at other things.

Boy, I didn't see this coming

. When will Tom learn?

If the bolded statement above is true than Intel will get another notch in their cap. No mult. lock and "already designed for higher clock speeds".

Not to mention the software app they are releasing for their MB's allowing them to be OC'd.

Don't count on it. Intel has given unlocked engineering processors for Preview in the past, each time people began to think that maybe the Multiplier was going to be unlocked. Once Final product shipped however, they came locked.

EXACTLY. Orion - If you believe for ONE second that Intel has decided to unlock the multiplier on the new p4s then you are extremely ignorant.

lol i just wanted to quote... call it trolling or something awesome like that.

anyway i agree... amd unlocked their multipliers just to gain some market share back in the enthusiast crowd. INbut i mean intel has only recently begun worrying about us crazy guys in the "enthusiast" crowd. thats when u realize we actually matter, when inBUT starts looking at us as a source of profit.

peace

 

[orion7144]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: orion7144

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: draco8099
You guys should reread the articale, looks like he updated it with the following.

"Update Sept 24,2003: Unfortunately we have made a mistake in the original article: In addition to the official P4 EE 3.2GHz we had included benchmark scores of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz. These values were planned for a future THG article and were not intended to be included here. We would like to apologize especially to those readers who misinterpreted our charts. The two bars of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz have now been removed. However, this issue does not affect our conclusion as we have only compared the official P4 3.2GHz EE to all other test candidates in our original article. For your information: The press sample of the P4 Extreme provided by Intel does not have a multiplier lock and is already designed for higher clock speeds. "

Also all fan boys from both sides need to take a cold shower, if you actually look at the graphs and draw your own conclusions it says that one cpu is good for some things and the other is good at other things.

Boy, I didn't see this coming

. When will Tom learn?

If the bolded statement above is true than Intel will get another notch in their cap. No mult. lock and "already designed for higher clock speeds".

Not to mention the software app they are releasing for their MB's allowing them to be OC'd.

Don't count on it. Intel has given unlocked engineering processors for Preview in the past, each time people began to think that maybe the Multiplier was going to be unlocked. Once Final product shipped however, they came locked.

EXACTLY. Orion - If you believe for ONE second that Intel has decided to unlock the multiplier on the new p4s then you are extremely ignorant.

Dam you again...

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: orion7144

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: orion7144

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: draco8099
You guys should reread the articale, looks like he updated it with the following.

"Update Sept 24,2003: Unfortunately we have made a mistake in the original article: In addition to the official P4 EE 3.2GHz we had included benchmark scores of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz. These values were planned for a future THG article and were not intended to be included here. We would like to apologize especially to those readers who misinterpreted our charts. The two bars of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz have now been removed. However, this issue does not affect our conclusion as we have only compared the official P4 3.2GHz EE to all other test candidates in our original article. For your information: The press sample of the P4 Extreme provided by Intel does not have a multiplier lock and is already designed for higher clock speeds. "

Also all fan boys from both sides need to take a cold shower, if you actually look at the graphs and draw your own conclusions it says that one cpu is good for some things and the other is good at other things.

Boy, I didn't see this coming

. When will Tom learn?

If the bolded statement above is true than Intel will get another notch in their cap. No mult. lock and "already designed for higher clock speeds".

Not to mention the software app they are releasing for their MB's allowing them to be OC'd.

Don't count on it. Intel has given unlocked engineering processors for Preview in the past, each time people began to think that maybe the Multiplier was going to be unlocked. Once Final product shipped however, they came locked.

EXACTLY. Orion - If you believe for ONE second that Intel has decided to unlock the multiplier on the new p4s then you are extremely ignorant.

Dam you again...

Awww, I :heart: you too!

 

[DarkMask]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: orion7144

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: orion7144

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: draco8099
You guys should reread the articale, looks like he updated it with the following.

"Update Sept 24,2003: Unfortunately we have made a mistake in the original article: In addition to the official P4 EE 3.2GHz we had included benchmark scores of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz. These values were planned for a future THG article and were not intended to be included here. We would like to apologize especially to those readers who misinterpreted our charts. The two bars of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz have now been removed. However, this issue does not affect our conclusion as we have only compared the official P4 3.2GHz EE to all other test candidates in our original article. For your information: The press sample of the P4 Extreme provided by Intel does not have a multiplier lock and is already designed for higher clock speeds. "

Also all fan boys from both sides need to take a cold shower, if you actually look at the graphs and draw your own conclusions it says that one cpu is good for some things and the other is good at other things.

Boy, I didn't see this coming

. When will Tom learn?

If the bolded statement above is true than Intel will get another notch in their cap. No mult. lock and "already designed for higher clock speeds".

Not to mention the software app they are releasing for their MB's allowing them to be OC'd.

Don't count on it. Intel has given unlocked engineering processors for Preview in the past, each time people began to think that maybe the Multiplier was going to be unlocked. Once Final product shipped however, they came locked.

EXACTLY. Orion - If you believe for ONE second that Intel has decided to unlock the multiplier on the new p4s then you are extremely ignorant.

Dam you again...

Awww, I :heart: you too!

we have a massive quote tree going on

go AT!!!!