http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/06/our-coverage-of-anand.html
On June 5, I published the SysMark 2004 comparison between Con E6300 and Athlon 64 X2 3800+. Many visitors from intel.com read that page. On June 6, Anand showed SysMark 2004 comparison between Conroe XE and FX62.
Some people keep quoting Anand's stuff as gospel truth. I have proven that Anand is a paid Intel pumper. So please stop quoting Anand as reliable source here, except for critical examination.
* Dempsey vs Opteron benchmark: Why did AnandTech handicap the Opteron? The responses I quoted in the comments were from Anand himself. We know now, Dempsey is no match to Opteron in 64 bit performance.
* Anand's benchmark on Yonah: X2 3800+ won by 16:6, yet Anand initially gave X2 a negative conclusion. After seeing those big Centrino ads on the same review page, it became all too clear. Anand's primary source of income is ad money.
* IDF: Was Anand duped by INTEL? Anand pushed the Intel arranged buttons, instantly wrote that "Intel Regains the Performance Crown". After the BIOS issue, Intel called Anand back and had the machine BIOS flashed and tests redone. No one else got such VIP treatment from Intel. I suggested to AMD that it should subpoena Anand for information regarding the IDF test as part of the discovery process in the anti-trust lawsuit.
* One month later, Intel quoted Anand's words and showed them to Wall Street analysts and investors. Intel market cap increased about $100 million that day. You notice that Hexus.net was also quoted by Intel (see page 51 of this Intel presentation to Wall Street).
* Today, Anand published what he claimed to be an independent Conroe benchmark, while others could only push Intel arranged buttons. How could Intel trust Anand so much more than others? Anand claimed that he gathered the Intel parts. How? The Taiwanese were suddenly not afraid of Intel any more and just gave Anand the Conroe CPU?
Let's make some quick comparisons. In this test by PCStats, an Athlon FX62 got a SysMark 2004 Office Productivity Overall score of 261 . In Anand Lal Shimpi's test, FX62 (2.8GHZ, 2x1MB) only got 210, Conroe XE (2.93GHZ) got 266. This result for a slower Athlon 64 X2 5000+ agreed with PCStats' results quite well. There, the X2 5000+ with a 7200RPM HD got 230 points in SysMark 2004 Office Productivity Overall. Look at the FX62 sub scores from PCStats, they were 263 for communications, 297 for document creation, and 214 for data analysis. However, in AnandTech's results for FX62, the sub scores were respectively 178, 280, 185.
Let's look at PCStats.com result on Business Winstone 2004, the FX62 got a score of 36.4 there. However, at AnandTech, FX62 only got 27.9, while the Conroe XE got 32.8.
Why were AnandTech's scores on FX62 substantially lower than the scores obtained by others?
Anand is not dumb. He knew that AMD64's main advantage is low memory latency due to the integrated memory controller (IMC). AMD64 doesn't need huge cache in general because it can access memory quickly. AMD estimated that IMC's low latency gave its CPUs 20% performance edge. Intel Conroe's solution is to use large cache to compensate the lack of IMC. With this knowledge, Anand decided to use high latency 5-5-5-12 DDR2 memory for his test. As a result, FX62's low latency IMC advantage was almost eliminated.
As you can see from this newegg.com memory shopping page, most DDR2-800 memory in the market today has 4-4-4-12 or lower latency. In fact, on newegg.com, out of 59 DDR2-800 memory products, only 15 models have CAS latency of 5, the other 44 products have CAS latency of 4 or lower. 4-4-4-12 memory is 25% quicker than the 5-5-5-12 used by Anand.
AnandTech's results on FX62 should therefore be considered invalid if not fraudulent. Based on AnandTech's SysMark 2004 results on Conroe XE (2.93 GHZ) and PCStats' results on Athlon 64 FX 62:
SysMark 2004 Office Overall: Conroe XE scored 266, Athlon 64 FX 62 scored 261
Business Winstone 2004: Conroe XE scored 32.8, Athlon 64 FX62 scored 36.4
This agrees with our previous findings.
Charlie at INQ commented that "t would most likely be cheaper to buy all the hardware sites out there off". I guess some company has already done that. What did Charlie know? A hardware site, a script kiddie finished reading "How to Upgrade Your PC" pushing benchmark buttons. I doubt his annual income is big. He should be cheap, as our Charlie observed.
On June 5, I published the SysMark 2004 comparison between Con E6300 and Athlon 64 X2 3800+. Many visitors from intel.com read that page. On June 6, Anand showed SysMark 2004 comparison between Conroe XE and FX62.
Some people keep quoting Anand's stuff as gospel truth. I have proven that Anand is a paid Intel pumper. So please stop quoting Anand as reliable source here, except for critical examination.
* Dempsey vs Opteron benchmark: Why did AnandTech handicap the Opteron? The responses I quoted in the comments were from Anand himself. We know now, Dempsey is no match to Opteron in 64 bit performance.
* Anand's benchmark on Yonah: X2 3800+ won by 16:6, yet Anand initially gave X2 a negative conclusion. After seeing those big Centrino ads on the same review page, it became all too clear. Anand's primary source of income is ad money.
* IDF: Was Anand duped by INTEL? Anand pushed the Intel arranged buttons, instantly wrote that "Intel Regains the Performance Crown". After the BIOS issue, Intel called Anand back and had the machine BIOS flashed and tests redone. No one else got such VIP treatment from Intel. I suggested to AMD that it should subpoena Anand for information regarding the IDF test as part of the discovery process in the anti-trust lawsuit.
* One month later, Intel quoted Anand's words and showed them to Wall Street analysts and investors. Intel market cap increased about $100 million that day. You notice that Hexus.net was also quoted by Intel (see page 51 of this Intel presentation to Wall Street).
* Today, Anand published what he claimed to be an independent Conroe benchmark, while others could only push Intel arranged buttons. How could Intel trust Anand so much more than others? Anand claimed that he gathered the Intel parts. How? The Taiwanese were suddenly not afraid of Intel any more and just gave Anand the Conroe CPU?
Let's make some quick comparisons. In this test by PCStats, an Athlon FX62 got a SysMark 2004 Office Productivity Overall score of 261 . In Anand Lal Shimpi's test, FX62 (2.8GHZ, 2x1MB) only got 210, Conroe XE (2.93GHZ) got 266. This result for a slower Athlon 64 X2 5000+ agreed with PCStats' results quite well. There, the X2 5000+ with a 7200RPM HD got 230 points in SysMark 2004 Office Productivity Overall. Look at the FX62 sub scores from PCStats, they were 263 for communications, 297 for document creation, and 214 for data analysis. However, in AnandTech's results for FX62, the sub scores were respectively 178, 280, 185.
Let's look at PCStats.com result on Business Winstone 2004, the FX62 got a score of 36.4 there. However, at AnandTech, FX62 only got 27.9, while the Conroe XE got 32.8.
Why were AnandTech's scores on FX62 substantially lower than the scores obtained by others?
Anand is not dumb. He knew that AMD64's main advantage is low memory latency due to the integrated memory controller (IMC). AMD64 doesn't need huge cache in general because it can access memory quickly. AMD estimated that IMC's low latency gave its CPUs 20% performance edge. Intel Conroe's solution is to use large cache to compensate the lack of IMC. With this knowledge, Anand decided to use high latency 5-5-5-12 DDR2 memory for his test. As a result, FX62's low latency IMC advantage was almost eliminated.
As you can see from this newegg.com memory shopping page, most DDR2-800 memory in the market today has 4-4-4-12 or lower latency. In fact, on newegg.com, out of 59 DDR2-800 memory products, only 15 models have CAS latency of 5, the other 44 products have CAS latency of 4 or lower. 4-4-4-12 memory is 25% quicker than the 5-5-5-12 used by Anand.
AnandTech's results on FX62 should therefore be considered invalid if not fraudulent. Based on AnandTech's SysMark 2004 results on Conroe XE (2.93 GHZ) and PCStats' results on Athlon 64 FX 62:
SysMark 2004 Office Overall: Conroe XE scored 266, Athlon 64 FX 62 scored 261
Business Winstone 2004: Conroe XE scored 32.8, Athlon 64 FX62 scored 36.4
This agrees with our previous findings.
Charlie at INQ commented that "t would most likely be cheaper to buy all the hardware sites out there off". I guess some company has already done that. What did Charlie know? A hardware site, a script kiddie finished reading "How to Upgrade Your PC" pushing benchmark buttons. I doubt his annual income is big. He should be cheap, as our Charlie observed.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram