Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CPU testing - do you smell fish i do! more amd bias!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 4, 2007 9:29:25 PM

More AMD bias from THG, is this test fixed? THG really must not like Intel! Did you guys pick through the amd chips to find a cool running one?

While i lov this little community when comes to cpu testing .....I think THG spends along time figuring out how to design an article to make amd look good!

Those power ratings look fishy - amd 5600+ runs hot and a core 2 runs cool why the higher power draw from Intel? My 2.4ghz 3600+ sure is hot!


again comparing a 3 ghz chip (6000+) vs a 2.4ghz 9E6600) chip - forget the 6000+ is a steamer oven and the e6600 is nice and cool at 3ghz! you know just because amd sells chips at the very maximum speed they will run and Intel does not - you might mention that- well THG sure takes advantage!

no mention that the e6400 or e6600 are just dieing to run at 2.6 -3.4ghz? while the amd chips are dieing at 3.4ghz?

AMD is green we all know that - something sure seems fishy with those power consumption numbers. I guess i smell the seaweed on the shipping crates from amd's overseas factories? Seas weed is green or maybe it was another green weed that THG smelled to makes theses tests favor amd again?

:evil:  I am sure there must be a advertising issue here with this article - this is third CPU test - that does it best to make amd look as good as possible while leaving out the little benefits of core 2! :twisted:

ya ya -- IFB!
May 4, 2007 9:41:10 PM

you no speak-ah any english? :lol:  Sounds like the review got someones feathers in a bunch.

Forget that it seems to correspond with what other sites are publishing, its all THG's fault somehow. [/sarcasm]

ShatSprayer spreading more FUD as usual.
Related resources
May 4, 2007 9:41:59 PM

Quote:
THG is anything but biased, its a tag thrown at them by those who cant comprehend how mistakes are actually made and solved.


wow i do not know if you are serious or this is a good bit of sarcasm


i can hardly read the article it seems - i read the conclusion then results then the test methods - i could not bare to look at any longer!

----
Quote:
you no speak-ah any english? :lol:  Sounds like the review got someones feathers in a bunch.

Forget that it seems to correspond with what other sites are publishing, its all THG's fault somehow. [/sarcasm]

ShatSprayer spreading more FUD as usual.


where is your optotron signature? emberassed are we?
i got 4 banger for sale 4 dual core opptys 940 - u need it sandy?

$10k last year - $3.5k - 8 threads 2.4ghz chips i think???
May 4, 2007 9:47:02 PM

your 3600 at 2.8ghz now thats a good system compare that to e6300 at 2.8ghz now we got a fair test!
May 4, 2007 9:52:52 PM

Quote:
More AMD bias from THG, is this test fixed? THG really must not like Intel! Did you guys pick through the amd chips to find a cool running one?

While i lov this little community when comes to cpu testing .....I think THG spends along time figuring out how to design an article to make amd look good!

Those power ratings look fishy - amd 5600+ runs hot and a core 2 runs cool why the higher power draw from Intel? My 2.4ghz 3600+ sure is hot!


again comparing a 3 ghz chip (6000+) vs a 2.4ghz 9E6600) chip - forget the 6000+ is a steamer oven and the e6600 is nice and cool at 3ghz! you know just because amd sells chips at the very maximum speed they will run and Intel does not - you might mention that- well THG sure takes advantage!

no mention that the e6400 or e6600 are just dieing to run at 2.6 -3.4ghz? while the amd chips are dieing at 3.4ghz?

AMD is green we all know that - something sure seems fishy with those power consumption numbers. I guess i smell the seaweed on the shipping crates from amd's overseas factories? Seas weed is green or maybe it was another green weed that THG smelled to makes theses tests favor amd again?

:evil:  I am sure there must be a advertising issue here with this article - this is third CPU test - that does it best to make amd look as good as possible while leaving out the little benefits of core 2! :twisted:

ya ya -- IFB!


I am not endorsing the results of the article. I'm just trying to shine a light on the situatio The AMD chips will get hotter at the same power consumption because they are less capable of dissipating heat due to the insulator layer imbedded for SOI. This is a perfect example of a case where logic fails when one doesn't know that they are comparing apples to oranges.
May 4, 2007 9:56:11 PM

i was basing that on the heat sink temps - i have never felt a chip package - when its running.

i have a hard time with those power conclusions but hey i could be wrong!
----
ya i only got 5 hours of sleep i am over worked - too many people changing their minds mid build - ok i am in the insane mode.

Quote:
your 3600 at 2.8ghz now thats a good system compare that to e6300 at 2.8ghz now we got a fair test!
8O This thread is quickly becoming painful.
May 4, 2007 10:01:35 PM

Don't you think that a good heatsink would have a temperature that is related to the package and the die? Will all things being equal, a warmer die will result in a warmer heatsink. You shouldn't need to go measure the temperature on the die.
May 5, 2007 4:05:11 AM

Bottom line: if your building a system and you want to spend less the $150 on a cpu the go amd. If you need a system now and you want speed go E6600. If you need more speed go q6600 at 3.2+ ghz.

if you have over $150 the E6420 and E6600 can not be matched. At $500 the q 6600 is a sweet chip.

WSZ, me, built 2 more E6600 systems this week - one system will ship at only 3.26ghz (the first in 4 months below 3.37ghz)) not the usual 3.37ghz. 1500fsb x 9 the other at 3.37 that is the best value - sorry THG. Really no amd system will match it - we ship them with stock intel coolers too!

I find this article misleading? o well

The fact is both amd and Intel have very competitive products and the speed of computers in general over the last year have moved at unsustainable pace - or will they continue at this pace?

we are running water cooled qx6700 at 3.6ghz, only 1.5 yrs ago it was single core P4's at 4ghz vs amd's (short pipe line, more calculations per clock) athlon. Mid 2005 dual core! wow! 2006 quad core! quad wow

game on!
May 5, 2007 1:47:52 PM

Quote:
Bottom line: if your building a system and you want to spend less the $150 on a cpu the go amd. If you need a system now and you want speed go E6600. If you need more speed go q6600 at 3.2+ ghz.

if you have over $150 the E6420 and E6600 can not be matched. At $500 the q 6600 is a sweet chip.

What bias, what speed,... what are you talking about :?: :!:
If you consider the X2 6000+ a steamer, take a look at the very interesting 60/90 min test to see how in a real world environment, the X2 6000+ consumes considerably less than the E6600 and the X2 5200+ (or what else it was) less than the E6400 and I know it's hard to bare for an intel fanboy like you :lol: 
As for comparing a 3.0 GHz CPU with a 2.4GHz one, there's really nothing bad in it when performance, price and power consumption are comparable; we used to accept pretty easily the challenge between a 2.0GHz A64 and 3.0GHz P4.
Bottom line: the only thing I smell is Intel fanboy sticking his nose whenever he can; when will you grow up :roll:
May 5, 2007 2:13:05 PM

*Sigh*

Open mouth, insert foot.
May 5, 2007 3:15:07 PM

Quote:
Those power ratings look fishy - amd 5600+ runs hot and a core 2 runs cool why the higher power draw from Intel? My 2.4ghz 3600+ sure is hot!


Isn't it something to do with the idle power draw?

Aren't you confusing OC with non-OC here? Everyone knows that OC'd Intel C2D will outperform anything AMD has.

But if power consumption is an issue, as it is for anyone over the age of 18, and you don't OC, then AMD is a good choice.

Where's the bias? These accusations are very silly. Are you just bored?
May 5, 2007 3:37:18 PM

Anyone who bought a P4 in 2005 and an athlon x2 in 2007 (both for a similar price) can be proclaimed a fanboy?

How many people overclock office machines?
How many office machines run high cpu loads most of the time?

price range / performance range is the only metric that matters
(not clock speed).
May 5, 2007 3:43:02 PM

Quote:
Anyone who bought a P4 in 2005 and an athlon x2 in 2007 (both for a similar price) can be proclaimed a fanboy?

How many people overclock office machines?
How many office machines run high cpu loads most of the time?

price range / performance range is the only metric that matters
(not clock speed).

I run my office 3.0GHz p4 @ 3.5GHz but, shhhhhhh :) 
a b à CPUs
May 5, 2007 4:03:31 PM

Quote:
More AMD bias from THG, is this test fixed? THG really must not like Intel!


Oh the irony! It wasn't too long ago that THG was called bias towards Intel.

To quote Big Head Todd and the Monsters, "All in all, turn the wheel, all life is really just a circle."
May 5, 2007 4:08:17 PM

Quote:
I find this article misleading? o well

The fact is both amd and Intel have very competitive products and the speed of computers in general over the last year have moved at unsustainable pace - or will they continue at this pace?

game on!


Actually, I found parts of the article were either confusing and not well explained myself, so you aren't alone there. It did seem that Intel was better in some things while AMD did better in others, but the comparisons in temps and power comsumption didn't make sense to me.

As to the pace of developement, I suspect that Intel has pretty much reached a plateau for the moment and AMD will catch up during the next year or so. In a couple years, a new round of innovation should begin again. As it is, stock mhz cycles haven't really gone up all that much for the past couple years, though overclocking has pushed some cpus much higher. Right now, I think gains in efficiency will be the next priority for both companies, not overall speed.

I think the next big gains in the computing world will be in the video cards as the requirements for Vista/DX10 are understood and implemented.

All the above is my opinion only and may well be wrong. Either my crystal ball is getting hazy or I need to see an eye doctor.
May 5, 2007 4:12:49 PM

I can't find a link to the article so don't know what it said.

What I do know is that my E6600 is overclocked from 2.4 to 3.0ghz on stock voltage and its temp is 40C on the stock cooler!!!

So no signs of high power draw here.

Here's the proof:



If you doubt its an overclock look at the fsb - 1336Mhz.



Also according to tests, the E6600 has a TDP value of 65W:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=e6600&pa...


Compare this to the AMD:

Athlon 6000+ TDP = 125W

Athlon 5600+ TDP = 95W

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/02/22/amd_athlon_...


All sounds a little fishy to me as well!
May 5, 2007 4:50:59 PM

Um, that TDP value only means something if the cpu is running on stock. Once you start overclocking... you may as well throw that number out the window.
May 5, 2007 5:25:20 PM

Quote:

Also according to tests, the E6600 has a TDP value of 65W:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=e6600&pa...


Compare this to the AMD:

Athlon 6000+ TDP = 125W

Athlon 5600+ TDP = 95W

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/02/22/amd_athlon_...


All sounds a little fishy to me as well!


Intel and AMD measure TDP differently so this is irrelevant.
It's a total platform metric in the article.

Edit 1:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/05/04/which_is_the_bes...

Quote:

If you are willing to spend more than $200 on the processor, Core 2 Duo still is the only reasonable choice.

In other words: AMD still provides a great value, but mostly in the mainstream.

Since you spent more than 200$ on a E6600 it's a clear win for C2D.
Since you overclock it's a clear win for C2D.
May 5, 2007 5:55:52 PM

Quote:
*Sigh*

Open mouth, insert foot.


ninja, you forgot an important step in theprocess....

"profit"
May 5, 2007 10:09:08 PM

Quote:
Um, that TDP value only means something if the cpu is running on stock. Once you start overclocking... you may as well throw that number out the window.

It's also known that Intel's and AMD's TDP's do not show the same kind of value and AMD has been complaining about this some time ago. However, this new power consumption test was really nicely tailored to show the real world power consumption and it showed what logics tells; AMD's C'n'Q runs the CPU @ 800MHz when idle while SpeedStep does not go below 1600MHz and this proves so effective that it totally turns the tables in AMD's favor at the end because, even the hardcore gamer/programmer/renderer/encoder etc, for most of the time has his PC idling.
May 6, 2007 1:34:53 AM

oops... ya that too... CnQ and SS also change the numbers around not to mention intel and AMD rate their TDP differently...
May 6, 2007 6:30:58 AM

Quote:
I find this article misleading? o well

The fact is both amd and Intel have very competitive products and the speed of computers in general over the last year have moved at unsustainable pace - or will they continue at this pace?

game on!


Actually, I found parts of the article were either confusing and not well explained myself, so you aren't alone there. It did seem that Intel was better in some things while AMD did better in others, but the comparisons in temps and power comsumption didn't make sense to me.

As to the pace of developement, I suspect that Intel has pretty much reached a plateau for the moment and AMD will catch up during the next year or so. In a couple years, a new round of innovation should begin again. As it is, stock mhz cycles haven't really gone up all that much for the past couple years, though overclocking has pushed some cpus much higher. Right now, I think gains in efficiency will be the next priority for both companies, not overall speed.

I think the next big gains in the computing world will be in the video cards as the requirements for Vista/DX10 are understood and implemented.

All the above is my opinion only and may well be wrong. Either my crystal ball is getting hazy or I need to see an eye doctor.

than you lord someone is with me! :p 
May 6, 2007 7:05:44 AM

Quote:
Anyone who bought a P4 in 2005 and an athlon x2 in 2007 (both for a similar price) can be proclaimed a fanboy?

How many people overclock office machines?
How many office machines run high cpu loads most of the time?

price range / performance range is the only metric that matters
(not clock speed).


I don't overclock... I have tryed and tested the limits of my rig, but don't normally use any overclokking because I don't need... Everything runs smootly without it in anyway.
Then there are allso huge amount of people who don't know how to acces the bios settings (and don't want to do it...) so they are newer gonna overclock.
Then there are those who take of everything they can because they can... Most of them are hanging around in these forums.

So summa summarum. For most people that use computer to any dayly surffing and wordprosessing the Intel and AMD are very viable option, depending on the prise.
May 6, 2007 8:17:21 AM

I haven't read all the posts or the article itself yet, though I have seen similar ones with similar results in other places. One thing I feel that needs to be said though is that you have shown yourself on these forums to be Intel biased, and therefore more likely to call foul on an article that says anything positive about AMD.
May 6, 2007 8:22:15 AM

You again.

a b à CPUs
May 6, 2007 8:40:09 AM

Read this post and my next few to see how much I care about your opinion

+1
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2007 8:40:27 AM

+1
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2007 8:40:45 AM

+1
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2007 8:41:02 AM

+1
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2007 8:41:22 AM

+1
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2007 8:50:49 AM

LOL randomizer.
May 6, 2007 12:14:58 PM

Quote:
I haven't read all the posts or the article itself yet, though I have seen similar ones with similar results in other places. One thing I feel that needs to be said though is that you have shown yourself on these forums to be Intel biased, and therefore more likely to call foul on an article that says anything positive about AMD.


Most people on these forums are performance leader (currently that is Intel) biased.
May 6, 2007 9:46:47 PM

Your right, and I am in no way biased toward one company or the other. What I said was that DS has been known to be irrationally Intel biased. When someone like that calls bias for another company, it pretty much loses its meaning.
May 6, 2007 9:55:58 PM

Quote:
Your right, and I am in no way biased toward one company or the other. What I said was that DS has been known to be irrationally Intel biased. When someone like that calls bias for another company, it pretty much loses its meaning.


cool i got a short name DS! I am divorcing this post i was tired with no sleep when i read the article.


but it is true - this forums is filled with pro amd crazies i seem to attract like flies to dead things

"irrationally..." NO-I just claim that amd single core chips are over rated by biased single application testing. ok fine i am a intel user too.

i also claim amd's lead was only from may 2005-july 2006 not the past 3 years as others lov to say!
May 6, 2007 10:05:04 PM

I would love to see you find just one post of mine that irrationally favors AMD, or that would make me a "pro AMD crazy". Good luck.

I think people's posts speak for themselves, and yours (in more than just this thread), have shown a bias. I am obviously not the only one that has noticed this.
May 6, 2007 10:18:10 PM




10 minutes in paint
May 6, 2007 10:27:19 PM

LMAO @ Turboflame. Also, perhaps the current draw is showing something that AMD has been saying (integrated memory controller). By measuring the total system current the two different approaches to CPU design are nullified and the true system power (not just CPU power) is displayed. Just my 2 cents.
May 6, 2007 11:20:37 PM

Did you even READ the article??? Look, the facts are as they spell them out. If Intel's chips have more headroom, then it's just that: untapped potential. BUT, Intel CHOOSES to clock their chips where they do and sell them at the price point that they do. It's that simple. Once again, a FAIR comparison of 2 chips at the same price point OUT OF THE BOX is pointed out to be AMD-biased... hmmm...
No, it's not. One reason is because AMD clocks their chips aggressively and aren't as easily overclocked as the Intels: so what? A layman would look at the clock speed/$ ratio at stock and say that they were getting a better deal with the AMD's. Guess what? At stock speeds, they are (based on clock speed alone, not application specific performance where it's a mish-mash of who wins out). Most people dont OC, face it! It's that simple.
May 7, 2007 12:21:19 AM

Quote:

but it is true - this forums is filled with pro amd crazies...

These forums contain more or less reasonable people with very clear ideas and very few fanatics and semi-fanatics to which you, still sadly, belong.

Quote:
... i seem to attract like flies to dead things

LOL; up to now, YOU have been the dead thing, having not answered to any of the critics people have made to your totally rant post;
-Why is it right to compare a 3.0GHz P4 to a 2.0GHz A64 and so mean to compare a 3.0GHz X2 to a 2.4GHz Core2 if they both have the same price ?!
-Why is it so bad for people who don't OC (about 99% of them) to get a certain X2 that performs equally to a certain Core2?!
-Why is telling people that a X2 will overall consume less power than a Core2 so bad?!

Can you get me the answers of these rhetorical questions please?!

Quote:
"irrationally..."

You are still the only person that claims that test was biased since you opened this thread 2-3 days ago. Do I have to add more about irrationality :roll:

Quote:
NO-I just claim that amd single core chips are over rated by biased single application testing. ok fine i am a intel user too.
i also claim amd's lead was only from may 2005-july 2006 not the past 3 years as others lov to say!

WTF
a c 99 à CPUs
May 7, 2007 3:46:13 AM

Quote:

I think the next big gains in the computing world will be in the video cards as the requirements for Vista/DX10 are understood and implemented.


Heh, heh, hardly. There is other technology that'll be MUCH more important than Vista and Direct3D 10. Direct3D and (powerful) GPUs are pretty much limited to gaming beyond a couple of whiz-bang eye candy things. And most of that is Direct3D 9.0 anyway, otherwise nothing could have run the fancy UI at Vista's launch.

I'd put the adoption of 64-bit programs and OSes as well as better thread handling and capability in OSes (particularly Windows) way ahead of Direct3D 10. 64-bit OSes allow much more RAM to be addressed, which is important in relatively resource-hungry OSes like Vista. And almost all new chips- and all new FAST chips- are at least dual-core and will only get more multi-core in the future. There are large gains to be had by tapping that power, much more than some prettier eye candy in a slow-selling OS.
a c 99 à CPUs
May 7, 2007 3:53:31 AM

Did the diagram on the left-hand side perhaps have a title that started with "R" before you put "Fanboy"over it? It looks eerily familiar from a sociology class I had to take. If it did, then that would be very apt. I think that some people worship at the Altar of Hector and others follow the every word of the Apostle Paul (Otellini, not the Jesus one) and show the very same traits as religious radicals.
May 7, 2007 4:15:55 AM

Actually, originally it said "Faith" and had various religous symbols surrounding the "ignore contradicting evidence" box but you're very close and you're interpretation is much more accurate than faith in general

Someone just made it as a joke, probably an atheist / agnostic

unfortunatley I accidentally saved over the original :( 
May 7, 2007 6:52:12 AM

I dont have many post on this (or any) forum, but i recognise you dragonsprayer, and almost all of your posts are heavly biased (read "you are full of shit")
Just because someone disagrees with you it doesn't mean that THEY are wrong..
!