Worst Anandtech review evar

[woodscomp]

All I can say is 40%..... Wait till Intel releases there P4F 64 bit line of processor and the all the PR fools will crying again.

I hated the PR system when they used it before and I hate it now. It is so deceptive, and truly is inaccurate to anything about the processor. AMD could have come out with a different method of branding there processors than the PR.

Ohhh btw who invented the coin term Pentium?

Could it have been Intel...


Have a nice day boys!

Sorry for the thread crap, I was going to start my own thread but figured I would have gotten flak from the AMD fanboys for a double post type of thing.

 

[lxie123]

I'm not defending the article, but rather trying to criticize it for the right reasons.
The post below describes what i'm trying to say best.

quoted from hardocp forums.

"What alot of these 'unfair comparison' arguments seem to miss was the intent of the review.
This was a preview of the 3.6F vs. A64, in which case the choice of CPUs was perfectly fine. A ~$420 3.6F vs $350 3500+.
Yes, they could have thrown in a 3700+ to box the 3.6 in on both price and rated performance, but it's not a major concern.

The methodology for the benches themselves is a bit suspect.
There were very few benchmarks that related to desktop performance. I'm happy to see more emphasis on 64 bit performance as OSes and software slowly become avalible for it. but if you're going to convince me to buy a 64 bit chip, show me UT2004 and FarCry 64 bit benchmarks. Benchmark something I might use on a desktop.
And show me the benifit of 64 bit. Why no direct comparisons between 32 and 64 bit code running on the same chip? Ok, it's nice that a Xeon3.6 computes super Pi faster, does it compute super Pi faster than a 32 bit 3.6?"


"That Xeon was just the regular 1MB L2 cache Prescott core with EM64T enabled, the same core that Intel just released in FCLGA775 ("P4 3.60F" $637 now, $417 in 2 weeks). The P4 w/EM64T will probably do better than the Xeon tested because 1) it uses lower latency DDR (non-registered), 2) can use DDR2 in i925 (won't help that much) and 3) i925 boards are more tuned for performance than Xeon server boards."

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

heh, apparently this article* caught the attention of the inquirer

sausage link

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: lookouthere
Worst review ever

I wouldn't call it the worst. I've seen worse. Let's just call it the worst review ever "at Anandtech." Seriously I've seen "reviews" of products that basically just describe the thing seemingly without even using it. There are whole sites with those kind of reviews.

 

[BDSM]

Hey peeps. I'm writing a review comparison right now of BMW 850 and a Volvo 850 and the Bwm wins bigtime! I know these aren't competing products most of you ppl are probably too stupid to figure that out.. Besides. BWM just gave me a free car


Just so you know.

 

[jm0ris0n]

Seriously, I know relatively nothing about linux, but why on earth was this review posted ?

ANANDTECH, Please TAKE IT DOWN ! ! ! !

Also, compare the best with the best....

 

[Dug]

The problem isn't the 3500 used as comparison, its the results of the benchmarks.

For instance the TSCP results should be much higher than the Intel setup (like 300k+) instead of lower 155k reported.

 

[lookouthere]

Originally posted by: Dug
The problem isn't the 3500 used as comparison, its the results of the benchmarks.

i think the problem is the cpu used and the results

 

[GhandiInstinct]

That Inquirer article is funny. Man those guys over there must be really bored.

Anyway, I too agree that this review was not appropriate. I second taking it down for it serves no purpose but to waste the readers time.

 

[lookouthere]

Originally posted by: GhandiInstinct
That Inquirer article is funny. Man those guys over there must be really bored.

Anyway, I too agree that this review was not appropriate. I second taking it down for it serves no purpose but to waste the readers time.

i third for taking it down...

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: lookouthere
Worst review ever

I wouldn't call it the worst. I've seen worse. Let's just call it the worst review ever "at Anandtech." Seriously I've seen "reviews" of products that basically just describe the thing seemingly without even using it. There are whole sites with those kind of reviews.

yes, it is the worst review at Anandtech. sorry about that

 

[dragonballgtz]

The only reason we even put the 3500+ in there is cause we already had benchmarks for it.

It is never good to be lazy.

We will benchmark some SMP 3.6GHz Xeons against a pair of Opterons in the near future

Should of did that the first time before posting this review.

I wonder if KK still has his job?

 

[GhandiInstinct]

This is what happens when Anand leaves

"It's a huge step for me to be able to leave the site for this long without being in constant contact with it, but I think that it's made possible by the fact that we have such great editors on staff now like Wes and Kris. "

-LOL

 

[BDSM]

I'm doing another one now.

I am comparing this:Hydraulic Excavator

To this:Vacuum Cleaner

Let me tell you the Cat 315 completely trounces the Craftsman! Epsecially at digging deep holes.[

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Dug
The problem isn't the 3500 used as comparison, its the results of the benchmarks.

The whole thing has turned into a train wreck, but ythere is a silver lining. Between this debacle and the RAID0 controversy, the site traffic has probably increased nicely=KA-CHING!

the worst part is this

The author did try to defend his position by saying:

"The only reason we even put the 3500+ in there is cause we already had benchmarks for it."

"Relax, its just a primer for future articles. A 3.6F is supposed to compare with a "3600+" rated Athlon 64 isnt it? Since we dont have a 3600+ the 3500+ should perform slightly lower? Isnt this what we expected? And for those of you who dont believe me, a 3.6GHz 1MB EM64T Nocona is *exactly* like a 3.6F."

"I thought the AMD chip did pretty damn good for costing $500 less!"

Alrighty then! So he resorts to saying the same things that were said in this thread! The PR makes the comparison kosher, the CPU is the same as the desktop model so this is just a fill-in for the 3.6ghz F.

It appears I was mistaken in thinking he didn't intend these things lxie123. You have my humble and sincere apology. He seems to forget this in his conclusion as the Inq pointed out here

If the author had said that the "fastest 3.6GHz Xeon trounced the slowest socket 939 Athlon 64 in math-intensive benchmarks at $500 more in cost", that would have put the paragraph in context. But as it currently stands, someone at Intel Corp. will no doubt use the AnandTech quote for the chip giant?s next round of Xeon promotional material. Intel will be happy, if it understands "happy"

which is what led me to believe what you said wasn't the case.

Furthermore, if his intention was to get us ready for the 3.6F, why is he using an obscure OS and APPs???? The majority of 3.6F desktop CPUs will be sold in OEM systems from Dell, HP/Compaq, and Gateway/eMachines. Those systems will not ship with the OS or Apps used in the review and the vast majority of those buying them will not be using any of those apps or any OS except Windows. So what is their relevance???? Those systems aren't likely to even sport a 64bit OS or apps, so the standard windows XP 32bit bench suite would be far more relevant to the performance of the 3.6F vs A64.

 

[jetpeach]

I'll be going elsewhere for my hardware reviews now, this review was a choke.

 

[*kjm]

Let us know what you find out BDSM

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: jetpeach
I'll be going elsewhere for my hardware reviews now, this review was a choke.

That's a knee-jerk response IMO. Anand is this site, when he has a very "hands on" position here, it's elite. Without him, it suffers from his lack of Vulcan like logic and intelligence. The staff here seem to be good people, and certainly smarter and more technically grounded than the likes of me, but they ain't Anand, plain and simple. Of course Tom's has proven controversey can be a big positive to the bottom line, so this type of article may do more good than harm from a business perspective.

The contention that poor reviews will make us stop reading, doesn't stop us from clicking on every link to Tom's nonsense in the past to seee what the latest bruhaha is about

 

[lookouthere]

tom's reviews are not bad
some of other review sites are total obscured but they did not create such big controversy
because they aren't even close to Anandtech's popularity
now Anandtech has set an example for all review sites just like the recent Asus PEG controversy
mb companies might have to implement PEG in the near future too

 

[lxie123]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
It appears I was mistaken in thinking he didn't intend these things lxie123. You have my humble and sincere apology. He seems to forget this in his conclusion as the Inq pointed out here

No problem, I was not offended.

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Furthermore, if his intention was to get us ready for the 3.6F, why is he using an obscure OS and APPs???? The majority of 3.6F desktop CPUs will be sold in OEM systems from Dell, HP/Compaq, and Gateway/eMachines. Those systems will not ship with the OS or Apps used in the review and the vast majority of those buying them will not be using any of those apps or any OS except Windows. So what is their relevance???? Those systems aren't likely to even sport a 64bit OS or apps, so the standard windows XP 32bit bench suite would be far more relevant to the performance of the 3.6F vs A64.

agreed, the benches used were severely lacking/inapropiate, and a few results were blatantly wrong as pointed out on ace hardware forums.

 

[GhandiInstinct]

Why this is my #1 review and hardware news site? Because of Anand Lai Shimpi. I love all of HIS reviews and HIS articles.

He is, imo, the best tech junkie.

 

[Shimmishim]

Originally posted by: BDSM
I'm doing another one now.

I am comparing this:Hydraulic Excavator

To this:Vacuum Cleaner

Let me tell you the Cat 315 completely trounces the Craftsman! Epsecially at digging deep holes.[

hahaha... sorry that was too funny

 

[DrMrLordX]

Props to all the folks who have pointed out flaws in the benchmarking methodology both here and elsewhere. The cpu comparison itself just sorta jumped out at me when I first saw the article.

Looks like the Register liked quoting me too, heh heh . . .

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: lxie123

As for comparing the two CPUs, well, neither P4F 3.6 nor Xeon 3.6 are out on the market so why bother doing such a rushed job? Is a job QUICKLY done better than a job WELL DONE?

Xeon 3.6 is available (at least anandtech has gotten their hands on one) while p4 3.6F is not. Otherwise I'm sure they would of conducted the article with a P4 64bit CPU.

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

He's using the Xeon Nocona 3.6 because they don't have the P4 3.6 with EMT64 right now.
In this review, the author is trying to compare 64 bit desktop performance and subsituted a nocona for p4 3.6 with emt64 due to lack of availability. I don't think his intent was to do workstation/server review and then subsituted athlon 64 3500+ for the opteron 150/ 250 like everyone is accusing him of.

The logic in this is still lost on me though Why pick the 3500+ for any reason??? It simply isn't the right CPU to match up even if attempting to look at AMD vs Intel in 64bit desktop performance. If attempting to compare what would be Intel's best 64bit desktop CPU against AMD, then use AMD's best Desktop 64bit CPU, and it most certainly is not the 3500+.

I see the logic in comparing P4 3.6F to A64 3500+. Since AMD called it 3500+ they are saying it should have equivalent or better perfromance then a P4 3.5 with 64-bit .. which is a 3.6F .. I personally would like to see those results as well as P4 3.6F against A64 3700+, 3800+, fx-53 etc.


For those wanting to see nocona 3.4 vs dual opteron 250 go here.

Link

Is it me, or did the 250 Opteron's blow the Nocona out of the water ?????

 

[glugglug]

Is it me, or did the 250 Opteron's blow the Nocona out of the water ?????

It's not just you, and those benchmarks are all 32-bit. One would expect the gap to widen with 64-bit. Something is very fishy with the review here.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Is it me, or did the 250 Opteron's blow the Nocona out of the water ?????

Well, if you consider a score of 5-4 in favor of the Opteron blowing out of the water... And the Apache tests are flawed since all it does is make 100,000 requests for the same 1KB file, one at a time. Though the Opteron should ultimately still hold the advantage even with a more realistic benchmark.