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.