The worst review ever of a Core 2 Extreme QX6850
Last response: in CPUs
Check out this article.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?a...
Intel sent this guy (Alexander Wolfe) a QX6850 CPU to review. So he decides to build a PC around this CPU on a budget of $1,666! The CPU alone costs $1,100 and he only had $566 left to use for all the other parts. He used an nVidia FX 5200 graphics card, an 80GB hard drive that runs at 5,400 RPMs, a single 1GB chip of value RAM, a generic 450 watt power supply, and a plain looking beige case! Most of those parts are at least 4 years old and manufacturers stopped using them on value computers years ago.
This is like General Motors sending a 505 hp V8 Corvette engine to a website to review. So the reviewer decides he's on a budget and puts the car in a rusted out 1989 Chevy Cavalier. Here is what the author would write: "Once we got the car running, I took it out on the test track and I got it up to 70 mph. When I hit that speed, all the body panels flew off and the front axle broke in half because of all the power being fed to the wheels. So it seems this engine is only capable of pushing a car up to 70 mph." NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
On the PCMark05 benchmark he got a score around 2,800. Some of the other websites that reviewed the QX6850 got a score of over 9,000!
I bet this is the LAST time Intel sends an enthusiast CPU to Information Week for a review. You can leave a comment about the article. Please slam the author for using parts from a 1GHz machine.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?a...
Intel sent this guy (Alexander Wolfe) a QX6850 CPU to review. So he decides to build a PC around this CPU on a budget of $1,666! The CPU alone costs $1,100 and he only had $566 left to use for all the other parts. He used an nVidia FX 5200 graphics card, an 80GB hard drive that runs at 5,400 RPMs, a single 1GB chip of value RAM, a generic 450 watt power supply, and a plain looking beige case! Most of those parts are at least 4 years old and manufacturers stopped using them on value computers years ago.
This is like General Motors sending a 505 hp V8 Corvette engine to a website to review. So the reviewer decides he's on a budget and puts the car in a rusted out 1989 Chevy Cavalier. Here is what the author would write: "Once we got the car running, I took it out on the test track and I got it up to 70 mph. When I hit that speed, all the body panels flew off and the front axle broke in half because of all the power being fed to the wheels. So it seems this engine is only capable of pushing a car up to 70 mph." NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
On the PCMark05 benchmark he got a score around 2,800. Some of the other websites that reviewed the QX6850 got a score of over 9,000!
I bet this is the LAST time Intel sends an enthusiast CPU to Information Week for a review. You can leave a comment about the article. Please slam the author for using parts from a 1GHz machine.
More about : worst review core extreme qx6850
Obviously I didn't read the whole article... I jumped to the last page and found this:
"Finally, with the QX6850, clearly my benchmarks didn't match what other reviews have achieved when they've matched the processor with state-of-the-art sister components in fully outfitted labs. Nevertheless, the QX6850 is clearly the smoothest running and fastest chip I've ever used, with ample headroom for any task.
However, I think it's reasonable to ask whether it's worth spending $1,100 on a processor if you're not going to build a so-called "enthusiast" (i.e., gaming) system. Either wait until the QX6850 comes down in price, or select a worthy but lower-cost alternative, such as the $300 Core 2 Quad Q6600."
Here the author clearly acknowledges his use of outdated hardware but still claims the chip is great. (He acknowledges the shortcomings of his "benchmark").
I do agree it was a waste of effort for him to do and for the reader to read. Why slap an enthusiast processor into grandma's "can barely view a web-page" PC. His time and energy could have been better spent elsewhere.
"Finally, with the QX6850, clearly my benchmarks didn't match what other reviews have achieved when they've matched the processor with state-of-the-art sister components in fully outfitted labs. Nevertheless, the QX6850 is clearly the smoothest running and fastest chip I've ever used, with ample headroom for any task.
However, I think it's reasonable to ask whether it's worth spending $1,100 on a processor if you're not going to build a so-called "enthusiast" (i.e., gaming) system. Either wait until the QX6850 comes down in price, or select a worthy but lower-cost alternative, such as the $300 Core 2 Quad Q6600."
Here the author clearly acknowledges his use of outdated hardware but still claims the chip is great. (He acknowledges the shortcomings of his "benchmark").
I do agree it was a waste of effort for him to do and for the reader to read. Why slap an enthusiast processor into grandma's "can barely view a web-page" PC. His time and energy could have been better spent elsewhere.
"Finally, with the QX6850, clearly my benchmarks didn't match what other reviews have achieved when they've matched the processor with state-of-the-art sister components in fully outfitted labs. Nevertheless, the QX6850 is clearly the smoothest running and fastest chip I've ever used, with ample headroom for any task.
However, I think it's reasonable to ask whether it's worth spending $1,100 on a processor if you're not going to build a so-called "enthusiast" (i.e., gaming) system. Either wait until the QX6850 comes down in price, or select a worthy but lower-cost alternative, such as the $300 Core 2 Quad Q6600."
The most pointless article ever written. I could see them using a Q6600 with the setup, but not the QX6850. Who in their right mind would build such a setup? Half the stuff in the setup I have laying around! Again, waste of time to write that article.
However, I think it's reasonable to ask whether it's worth spending $1,100 on a processor if you're not going to build a so-called "enthusiast" (i.e., gaming) system. Either wait until the QX6850 comes down in price, or select a worthy but lower-cost alternative, such as the $300 Core 2 Quad Q6600."
The most pointless article ever written. I could see them using a Q6600 with the setup, but not the QX6850. Who in their right mind would build such a setup? Half the stuff in the setup I have laying around! Again, waste of time to write that article.
He stated several times that the FX 5200 was holding back the performance in some of the benchmarks. And also that the hard drive and other parts were substandard. But if he cannot do this CPU justice, why even try? He mentioned he had built several other systems recently, why not take some of the parts off GOOD computers.
Again it was a waste of effort.
Again it was a waste of effort.
Related ressources
- Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 : Four Cores at Three Gigahertz - Forum
- HELP QX6850 vs Q6600 (re: XPS 630 - don't hate me) - Forum
- Reactions to toms P 2 review ? - Forum
- Worst . build. ever compitition - Forum
- WORST FX-6100 ever ? - Forum
The most ridiclous thing about this is that if you have the money for that processor, odds are you have the money to get the other components that would complement it. Who would spend that much and connect a crappy vid card, etc. I agree with the other posters, what a waste of time both for the author and for me having spent any time reading the article. He acknowledges the bad choice in components, but shouldn't he have know not to use them from the outset.
If I was Intel I'd send this guy a bunch of P3's for him to benchmark, they probably have a few laying around the warehouse.
LOL, budget build with an $1100 processor. Thats like putting a Corvette motor in a Civic.
If I was Intel I'd send this guy a bunch of P3's for him to benchmark, they probably have a few laying around the warehouse.
LOL, budget build with an $1100 processor. Thats like putting a Corvette motor in a Civic.
Related ressources:
- ForumIs the Geforce GTX 670 Worst Graphics Card Ever ?!
- ForumUltra is the worst psu company ever !!!!!!
- ForumRetail Phenoms slower than review samples + more errata info
- ForumAnandtech Phenom review is in
- ForumExtreme FSB 2 : The Quad- Core Advantage?
- ForumWill a QX6850 OC 3.5ghz bottleneck 2 HD 4870 x 2 ?
- ForumTHG is the worst reviewer... EVER !
- ForumGA-EP45-UD3L Mobo, Dominator RAM & QX6850 cannot run DDR 2 -1066
- ForumWhat is the Best motherboard for the qx6850 ???
- ForumQX6850 Cooling
- ForumIvy Bridge/Haswell: News, Rumors & Reviews
- ForumShould I buy QX6850 ?
- ForumQX6850 mobo compatibility
- ForumUsing Prime95 with a QX6850
- ForumI5 3570k or AMD FX 8350 ?
- More resources
!
