Toms review of 18 P4 boards

[Karlsbad]

Doesn't include IC-7 or P4P800 or any Asus boards at all for that matter? Am I somehow missing the point? It's supposed to be a price to performance ratio article, but the author doesn't list prices at all? I realize prices vary depending on location etc. but they should still be relative to each other for the most part. Maybe I'm missing the point here and I am the one who is apparently high on crack.

Committed to excellence, willing to make do with high average, able to get by on mediocrity in a pinch.

 

[fiask0]

That is exactly what I was thinking. This review is pointless if it doesn't include the main boards that everyone is using. Why didn't they include those boards? What a waste of time.

 

[pjordan]

How would the IC7 and the P4p800 compare to those 18? They are the best overclockers and performers, right? Most people seem to go with one or the other.

 

[Flinx]

The average Joe consumer's or corporate buyer's dilemma convinced us to ask suppliers to send us boards they deemed suitable to satisfy the demands of corporate customers and price-conscious consumers. We then geared our benchmarks accordingly for the 18 motherboards we tested.

Price concious is operative here. Not price/performance.
Price performance only within the category of price concious.



The loving are the daring!

 

[chingfang]

Why not include the VIA PT800 P4 chipset in this test?

 

[Flinx]

We asked the leading motherboard makers to send us their best and brightest for a no-holds bar price/performance test. We received boards with Intel's 875, 865, 845; VIA's P4X400 and P4M266A; and SiS' SiS648FX chipsets

Perhaps because that is all that were submitted for the test?

I'm pretty sure Tom's doesn't go out and buy boards. They ask for the vendors to submit things they want reviewed.

The loving are the daring!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Flinx on 08/25/03 09:22 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Crashman]

No companies sent one for the review, not that it would matter.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[Crashman]

It's supposed to be a review of cheap boards. Soyo messed up and sent an expensive board. Tom's should have simply put a price cap of $100 suggested retail on the boards when they petitioned these companies for review samples.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[Crashman]

The problem is, when they asked manufacturers for inexpensive boards, they didn't define the word inexpensive.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[Karlsbad]

Woohoo I'm a member. Uh, I'm not sure I like the sound of that. What's next, toolhead?

Committed to excellence, willing to make do with high average, able to get by on mediocrity in a pinch.

 

[siranthony]

I thought it as a wase of time also. Why didn't they just put some of the boards from the 865/875 review in. I don't get this one. Maybe they will sell the boards when they are done.

These specs are here so I don't have to repeat them. P4 2.4c @ 3.0 ASUS P4P800 dx Geil pc4000 2.5,3,3,6 250FSB 1:1 Radeon 9500 non-pro 2 Maxtor 60gig 7200rpm 8mb cach in raid 0 SB Audigy 2