Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

toms hardware intel fan boy?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 25, 2007 5:13:50 PM

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/08/parallel_process...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/02/game_on_with_asu...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/26/intel_x38_chipse...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/27/what_if_your_cpu...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/05/comparing_water_...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/09/directx_10_shoot...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/11/wd_caviar_gp/pag...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/16/boutique_graphic...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/24/does_cache_size_...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/19/the_truth_about_...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/17/parallel_process...

these are all the tests, reviews, articles are on toms home page. if ya look throughly, you'll fine some amd included tests. even the 500 dollar build was just intel cpu, then they added the amd 500 build recently.

th has been intel friendly for about 6 to 8 months now.
i have 2 rigs 1 gaming w/amd cpu, and a work rig w/p4.
so you can see my reasoning here, i would like a like more balance to the test beds.

intel's processors are excellent right now but if you like closely you can get a better performing cpu for the price form amd. example:
all prices come from the following link, and i will only display price vers. performance, you can run the different tests if u wish.

price not to exceed 100.$=

intel= 2

amd=17

lets compare the top cpu from both that are under 100$.(couldnt fine the p4d925 so i upgraded to the p4d930)

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

prices between 100. to 125.$

intel=1

amd=3

again the top cpu from both are tested.(again i couldnt fine the cpu on the comparison chart so i when up to the c2de6300, which is 175.$ and i when down to the cd2e4300 because these are the only cpus closely available).

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

prices from 125. to 150. $

intel=1

amd=4

top 2

again i had to upgrade and downgrade.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

now from 150. to 200.

intel=9

amd=2

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

there it is. feel free to compare the different chart tests.

1 more test for ya, we all know that intel can be overclocked, but take into account that most often you have to buy a more expensive motherboard and cooling setup which adds more the the overall price of the rig. so ive tested these 2 cpus that are almost identical in price.

1st from intel @ 179.bucks the c2d e6550
2nd from amd @ 174. bucks the athlon 64 x2 6000+ = ran these tests

the virus test cuz we all need to do it.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

dvds is a must
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

cpu test
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

games.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

thats enough.

now are we now buying our cpus based solely on overclockability? the most expensive?
is this why toms h is pushing the intel cpus like a good used car sales person would?

thank you, and plz dont flame, just intelligent, mature responses.
October 25, 2007 5:33:35 PM

TH favors Intel, just as I would, these days. Why? because they currently make better processors. Look in my sig. I built that 2 years ago, and it was a monster. The previous machine was a XP 2800+ system; before that, a XP 1800+. I would love to own an Intel machine right now.

TH is a hardware enthusiast site. Thus, many reviews will stress overclockability. There have been some reviews that found AMD to be the better choice if you don't plan to overclock and Intel to be better if you do plan to. That's not bias. That's fact. Intel chips have an air-cooling ceiling of around 4GHz these days. AMD chips barely pass 3.2GHz. Intel chips do more work per clock than AMDs, and they have a higher ceiling. If Intel wanted to, it could release a 3.6GHz Core 2 Duo with a little bit of selective binning. They'd be doing close to what AMD now does for its 6400+: hand-picking the chips.

Back before Core 2 Duo, it was flipped. TH focused on AMD systems because it was simply a joke to call your machine a high end gaming box and equip it with a Pentium 4 (or D). Sure, you could buy a 3.8GHz Pentium D and it would do alright... or you could buy a 2.8GHz AMD that put out less heat and ran faster. So the benchmarks focused on AMD. Now they focus on Intel because a serious gaming rig should have a Core 2 at this point in time.

If AMD manages to pull a coup with the Phenom and its stupid, obscure naming system, and the thing actually does outperform the Core 2, then I bet you TH will start including a lot more AMD info.

I am not a Intel Fanboi, nor am I an AMD Fanboi. I loved AMD when the K8 was king. Now i wistfully desire a Core 2 Quad. Would that I had the budget for that...
October 25, 2007 5:35:45 PM

Wow, just wow. Intel > AMD. Simple equation. Why is this so hard to understand? Didn't this happen in the A64 vs P4/PD days (just the opposite)?

I will admit that they have omitted AMD in several articles that left us with unanswered questions, though.
Related resources
October 25, 2007 5:50:56 PM

yes! exactly what im looking for. unanswered questions. i feel the same way. this is why i posted.
its kinda like the nfl, everyones suddenly a patriots fans, and there are just "the other teams". its as if the patriots won the superbowl yesterday.
is this what toms hardware is? is this how us geeks are?
if this is true, it should be toms (champion)hardware or something like that?
i personnally would like comparisons on both cpus highend to lowend, with price, so i can make a decision based on my needs and wallet size.

also, why dont they act the same toward video cards? they run test beds for them equally.
October 25, 2007 6:07:12 PM

why would you test drive a Ford Pinto as opposed to a Ferrari these days?
October 25, 2007 6:10:50 PM

Just use different sites, do you only get one source of information (of which may/may not be biased or false) before making a big decision? Some people only use expedia or orbitz or the other ones, or you could use a source like kayak which lists them all.
October 25, 2007 6:17:23 PM

They were "AMD fanboys" during the few years that AMD was faster than Intel for gaming. Now that Intel is faster they are "Intel fanboys". I am a fanboy of what ever product is the best, and Intel is obviously the best choice for enthusiasts at the moment.

THG has changed a lot since Tom left. They used to run and re-run various tests constantly. Now the VGA charts are useless, since ATI has updated their drivers.

Where are the tests for the X38 mobos with DDR3 and PCI 2.0? Anandtec has already posted a few. Newegg has had them for over a week now. Don't they get hardware to test from the manufacturers anymore? Maybe Asus think THG is irrelevant now.


October 25, 2007 6:18:33 PM

Please actually READ the articles that Tom's posts about the Intel Chips.
Then you may understand the reasons.

Unlike the old P4/AMD days, it does not take a special Mobo or Special Cooling to yield excellent OC's on the C2D.

3.2-3.4Ghz is simple on the 1mb Cache Models. w/ stock cooling.
3.0-3.2Ghz is simple on the 2mb/mb non Quad Chips. w/ stock cooling.

All of these will easily beat the AMD X2 6000+ or 6400+

Toss on a cheap after market cooler and the chips will run higher.
Basically, the Cheapest C2D is faster than anything AMD has to offer short of the Barcey.

Hopefully AMD will finally release a new Chip that is competitive in the enthusiast market.

When looking at Retail and OC is not an option, AMD is likely the way to go based on Stock Performance.

But as you noted with your own links, all the data somebody needs for stock performance is already there.

No need to review the same chip over and over again.
When after years of trivial updates, we finally will get something from AMD in Nov.
October 25, 2007 6:19:42 PM

GTengineer said:
why would you test drive a Ford Pinto as opposed to a Ferrari these days?


if i could afford a ferrari you think id be postin here or anywhere?
October 25, 2007 6:35:37 PM

The facts speak for themselves. This is an enthusiest site. Amd chips simply dont offer the same value that Intel chips do in the enthusiest market. Did you happen to forget the last couple of years when Intel was a joke and every site focused on AMD chips? ie they ran cooler, OCd better, and offered more preformance per clock. The tables turned.

This fact is further illustrated by AMDs use of yardsale price cuts. No one would buy an AMD chip if they were at the old price points.
October 25, 2007 6:39:09 PM

Naw-yi said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/08/parallel_process...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/02/game_on_with_asu...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/26/intel_x38_chipse...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/27/what_if_your_cpu...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/05/comparing_water_...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/09/directx_10_shoot...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/11/wd_caviar_gp/pag...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/16/boutique_graphic...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/24/does_cache_size_...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/19/the_truth_about_...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/17/parallel_process...

these are all the tests, reviews, articles are on toms home page. if ya look throughly, you'll fine some amd included tests. even the 500 dollar build was just intel cpu, then they added the amd 500 build recently.

th has been intel friendly for about 6 to 8 months now.
i have 2 rigs 1 gaming w/amd cpu, and a work rig w/p4.
so you can see my reasoning here, i would like a like more balance to the test beds.

intel's processors are excellent right now but if you like closely you can get a better performing cpu for the price form amd. example:
all prices come from the following link, and i will only display price vers. performance, you can run the different tests if u wish.

price not to exceed 100.$=

intel= 2

amd=17

lets compare the top cpu from both that are under 100$.(couldnt fine the p4d925 so i upgraded to the p4d930)

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

prices between 100. to 125.$

intel=1

amd=3

again the top cpu from both are tested.(again i couldnt fine the cpu on the comparison chart so i when up to the c2de6300, which is 175.$ and i when down to the cd2e4300 because these are the only cpus closely available).

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

prices from 125. to 150. $

intel=1

amd=4

top 2

again i had to upgrade and downgrade.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

now from 150. to 200.

intel=9

amd=2

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

there it is. feel free to compare the different chart tests.

1 more test for ya, we all know that intel can be overclocked, but take into account that most often you have to buy a more expensive motherboard and cooling setup which adds more the the overall price of the rig. so ive tested these 2 cpus that are almost identical in price.

1st from intel @ 179.bucks the c2d e6550
2nd from amd @ 174. bucks the athlon 64 x2 6000+ = ran these tests

the virus test cuz we all need to do it.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

dvds is a must
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

cpu test
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

games.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

thats enough.

now are we now buying our cpus based solely on overclockability? the most expensive?
is this why toms h is pushing the intel cpus like a good used car sales person would?

thank you, and plz dont flame, just intelligent, mature responses.



i could go through these debate many but - intel chips are superior and there is no way to show any amd cpu is better for anything. you may have some advantages on power usage but that was disproved last week - the article should have had more cpu's.

i could go though and find all the pro amd articles - like when they build $500 pc and used a celeron instead of low end p4, even an 805 would smoked the athlon and was only $7 dollars or so more. so it goes both ways! or how about when they constantly hammer the memory controller - how great amd's built in memory controller is?

well the same memory controller is part of the issue why amd is so messed up now.

or when the slam net burst - hey if like was 20./20 hide site we know that leakage would not stop the p4 from its 10ghz projected speed. but now we have hafnium gates

sure thg slams the 840 it was junk but that gave us the qx6700 that lead to the q6600 - which blows any amd "true quad out of the water"

ok i am just the IFB #1!

just remember amd is always #2 accept with built in graphics., o ya and "true quad cores" waits now: "native quad cores"

who cares try taking on 3.6ghz q6600 with that 1.7ghz barcie! it might get to 2.4ghz maybe!
October 25, 2007 6:54:23 PM

a smart person would look at all sources - but you still find intel is superior. after all a $90 cpu a $200 cpu can all be set to run faster then any amd. plus clock for clock its faster.

amd will get that act together after ibm buys them and they stack cpu's vertically.
October 25, 2007 7:02:42 PM

how about this comparison dragonsprayer?

http://computers.pricegrabber.com/processors-retail-box...

http://computers.pricegrabber.com/processors-retail-box...

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

only thing here thats blow away is the prices. yes the intel score alittle higher but does that margin offset the 100 dollar prices difference? and yes go thru and prove your points w/links as i did. or what you say means nothing. and plz try and keep links related to th if at all possible, i couldnt with the above so i comparied with same service.
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2007 7:09:47 PM

dragonsprayer said:
i could go through these debate many but - intel chips are superior and there is no way to show any amd cpu is better for anything.


You are clearly thinking from an enthusiast standpoint. The mass market doesn't think like you do. I can't slam you for thinking the way you do since I am an enthusiast myself but I do try and wake up and realize that the majority of the market looks at what I can get for my money.

AMD clearly has some competitive chips in the mid to lower market range so the statement you make above is only true in the mind of the enthusiast with tunnel vision geared on wanting the latest and the greatest with deep pockets to support the habbit. :non: 

I DO NOT dislike either company (Intel or AMD) and I like the fact they drive each other to provide better products that give us what we want.

To those of you that are "Fan Boys" admittedly or not you should realize what each of the two of these companies have done to put pressure on each other to produce the products you so lovingly enjoy today. Sit back, enjoy the show and reap the benefits and rewards of both companies hard work to give you what you want.

Thats reality, like it or not, realize it or not and admit it or not. :sol: 
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2007 7:10:57 PM

dragonsprayer said:
amd will get that act together after ibm buys them and they stack cpu's vertically.



That would never get past SEC/Government scrutiny for Anti-Trust (monopoly) reasons. Intel's big enough as it is.



Regarding the relative lack of AMD coverage: It's not surprising since AMD's performance lead is long gone, the fact they have long delayed their latest offerings, and then followed up that delay with what amounts to a paper launch. Yes, the processors are technically available. Yes, they are reasonably competitive with Intel's mainstream chips. But the supply just isn't there. Disappointing, since the holiday buying season is upon us.

Anyways - When AMD has offerings to report on, I'm sure Tom's will inform us accordingly.
October 25, 2007 7:14:59 PM

The chart you posted is stock speeds - intel sets the clocks way down while amd sets the clocks near max.

the highest speed intel chip is 3ghz in 2 or 4 cores they will run 3.6ghz plus on air - the low end like a 6420 will run 3.2-3.4ghz not one but almost every single one and very stable.


most low end amd chips max out at 2.8ghz

the 6000+ can barely move past 3ghz

the newer amd x2 3.2ghz barly budges past stock speeds and its hot, as a slower intel 6420 (pretty high on the chart at stock speeds) will run as fast at cooler temperature then the 6000's' plus clock per clock will blow away amd

i am such a flamer - there is little difference in the real world i am just an intel fan boy!
October 25, 2007 7:15:55 PM

i am not sure in this day and age the ibm and amd would not fly

amd plus ibm would make some nice products after 2 years
October 25, 2007 7:18:05 PM

englandr753 said:
You are clearly thinking from an enthusiast standpoint. The mass market doesn't think like you do. I can't slam you for thinking the way you do since I am an enthusiast myself but I do try and wake up and realize that the majority of the market looks at what I can get for my money.

AMD clearly has some competitive chips in the mid to lower market range so the statement you make above is only true in the mind of the enthusiast with tunnel vision geared on wanting the latest and the greatest with deep pockets to support the habbit. :non: 

I DO NOT dislike either company (Intel or AMD) and I like the fact they drive each other to provide better products that give us what we want.

To those of you that are "Fan Boys" admittedly or not you should realize what each of the two of these companies have done to put pressure on each other to produce the products you so lovingly enjoy today. Sit back, enjoy the show and reap the benefits and rewards of both companies hard work to give you what you want.

Thats reality, like it or not, realize it or not and admit it or not. :sol: 


this is an example of a mature, intelligent response. skittle take note. and thank you englandr753.
October 25, 2007 7:19:45 PM

immature? perhaps... But I still make a valid point. Toms is not being "biased"... what kind of enthusiest would look at an AMD chip?
October 25, 2007 7:21:07 PM

i agree 100% my point view is one of cost performance with max stability and overclocking - since i only build overclocked systems - as i said in the real world there is little difference

from enthusiast point of view - any amd product is a waste unless you specifically going to upgrade to a quad core later - as it looks amd quad cores are a big failure at this point as far as competitive speed or clock to clock performance

i build 95% intel systems! so i am a biased fan boy!


englandr753 said:
You are clearly thinking from an enthusiast standpoint. The mass market doesn't think like you do. I can't slam you for thinking the way you do since I am an enthusiast myself but I do try and wake up and realize that the majority of the market looks at what I can get for my money.

AMD clearly has some competitive chips in the mid to lower market range so the statement you make above is only true in the mind of the enthusiast with tunnel vision geared on wanting the latest and the greatest with deep pockets to support the habbit. :non: 

I DO NOT dislike either company (Intel or AMD) and I like the fact they drive each other to provide better products that give us what we want.

To those of you that are "Fan Boys" admittedly or not you should realize what each of the two of these companies have done to put pressure on each other to produce the products you so lovingly enjoy today. Sit back, enjoy the show and reap the benefits and rewards of both companies hard work to give you what you want.

Thats reality, like it or not, realize it or not and admit it or not. :sol: 

October 25, 2007 7:22:21 PM

skittle said:
immature? perhaps... But I still make a valid point. Toms is not being "biased"... what kind of enthusiest would look at an AMD chip?


exactly! thank you!


wow was this fun now must go back to work no more playing!
October 25, 2007 7:25:43 PM

Quote:
well thank you for all the responses, this dragonsprayer kid has just ruined an adult conversation. like kids do.

like fansboy do. im out.


i am 45. i just type and spell chitty - back in the day at u of i engineering we got away with poor grammer etc as long as we could ace p-chem and 400 level solid state physics

3.2 average was 3.8 in this day of grade inflation

of corase back then we had 9 planets not 8, string theory can from can and it was silly

nano tech was in microns! lol!
October 25, 2007 7:29:10 PM

my high school son gets a new raid system every 3 months - he could care less about how a computer works as long as hell gate london servers work on the 31st

hey "look at water and fire (bioshock)" that dx10 "is so real" ya dad what ever......
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2007 7:29:27 PM

Tides will turn, they always have and always will...

I have a hard time thinking you were an Intel enthusiast overclocking a P4 when there was dual core AMD chip benching 20-30% faster. :p 
October 25, 2007 7:43:27 PM

If you had been reading THG for a longer timespan, youd know that THG actually is heavily favoring AMD. And when I say heavy, I do mean heavy.

BTW, why is everyone´s join date 1/1/1970? Looks like they messed with their servers since we still have some years left until its 1970 again =)
October 25, 2007 7:55:03 PM

lol i was only 8 in 1970!

yes i concur - THG is amd bias as i have post many times!

of coarse i am the #1 IFB!
October 25, 2007 8:21:14 PM

THG is mainly gamers and gamers do the following:

A) Buy the absolute best and OC it. (Very expensive, very powerful)
B) Buy the absolute best and run it stock. (Very expensive, almost as powerful)
C) Buy the middle- to low-end parts (because of budgetary constraints) and OC it. (Very cheap to moderate, can be very powerful)

Tell me how AMD fits into any of those categories (Except the most expensive parts - 6000/6400 - have a slight edge on the competition in the price range at STOCK only). Intel OCs better, Intel has the performance crown, and recently (with new steppings) consume less power (load and idle).

Case closed.
October 25, 2007 8:26:23 PM

Ycon said:
If you had been reading THG for a longer timespan, youd know that THG actually is heavily favoring AMD. And when I say heavy, I do mean heavy.

BTW, why is everyone´s join date 1/1/1970? Looks like they messed with their servers since we still have some years left until its 1970 again =)


I believe this is due to the new forum format they launched a few months back. All members that joined since the new format have correct dates (myself included).
a c 140 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
October 25, 2007 8:28:44 PM

What is THG a fan of. The best performance available they are not fan boys or else When a64 came out they would not have given it good reviews. They use AMD cpu's when they are fastest and Intel when they are.... Just like me....

Dont give this 6000+ = whatever intel unless you are going to give power....Thats what started all this started isn't it.......

If Barcelona is as good as it supposed to be....guess what the Intel fans will be saying the same thing....... Give it up.... grow up....read back more then a year and AMD was still used in most systems....They use whatever is fastest at the time.....for now thats Intel.....

Just so you know. in recent years I have WAY more amd systems then intel, why? cause they were the best bang for the buck when i got them(Durron +1000, AthlonXP 1800+, Athlon 64 3000+ and Athlon 64 3200+....vs my 2 Intel systems E6600 and Q6600.).....
October 25, 2007 8:38:39 PM

AMD still getting kicked around.The SPIDER is next month,midrange cpu market is up for grabs.Lets see who talks what.The dust from the merger is clearing folks
October 25, 2007 8:52:17 PM

You all have too much time on your hands...................
October 25, 2007 9:08:39 PM

Quote:

Quote:
X24800@2.5Ghz | Gigabyte GA-M61P-S3 | 8GB DDR2-667 | Onboard Video | Ultra 850W PSU | Ubuntu Server 7.04


For fear of sounding rude (believe me, I'm just curious): Why? 850W? For that? It doesn't pull 100w at the plug idle, and 200W full load.


Not rude, legitimate question! :)  A) I had it laying around, and b) there are currently 6 hard drives spun up in the box and two esata drive running off power thru an esata bracket.... :D  Since all 6 internal drives have active VM's and OS's on them, they're pretty much spun up all the time. The external's have video content on them and are accessed as needed but spend a fair amount of time spun up...
October 25, 2007 9:30:05 PM

I never really noticed the intel fanboyism of tomshardware except the charts that were not updated in nvidias favor, and some articles.
In general they doa good job.

One mayor disappointment was the article "the truth about PC power usage" tho. Pretentious, biased and senseless.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/245757-10-power-con...

It's too bad people (even editors) pick sides at some point.
October 26, 2007 2:17:08 PM

skittle said:
The facts speak for themselves. This is an enthusiest site. Amd chips simply dont offer the same value that Intel chips do in the enthusiest market. Did you happen to forget the last couple of years when Intel was a joke and every site focused on AMD chips? ie they ran cooler, OCd better, and offered more preformance per clock. The tables turned.

This fact is further illustrated by AMDs use of yardsale price cuts. No one would buy an AMD chip if they were at the old price points.


Where on the website did they indicate that this is "Tom's Hardware Enthusiest Guide" ?!?! It is very silly to say any hardware or tech site out there is "Enthusiest Only"

If its Enthusiest site, why are there are test on the X2 3600, 3800, E21xx series of Core 2s???
October 26, 2007 2:25:52 PM

Perhaps.... the AMD processors are just a lil hard to find? :lol: 
October 26, 2007 2:46:08 PM

pete4r said:
Where on the website did they indicate that this is "Tom's Hardware Enthusiest Guide" ?!?! It is very silly to say any hardware or tech site out there is "Enthusiest Only"

If its Enthusiest site, why are there are test on the X2 3600, 3800, E21xx series of Core 2s???


Because enthusiasts on a budget will OC the heck out of low-end parts to still have enough power to do what they need to be able to do with their build. Enthusiast doesn't only mean the best-of-the-best.

Edit: Spelling
a b à CPUs
October 26, 2007 2:54:54 PM

It does mean the best of the best to some of those that post here, u have to admit that...
October 26, 2007 2:59:23 PM

As many have said already: THG is an enthusiast site. They favor enthusiast equipment. And right now AMD isn't very enthusiastic. Except maybe their black editions which, oh my god, got a whole article dedicated (which wasn't flamed enough for it's AMD bias).
The truth is AMD does not offer the products for enthusiasts - unless you consider the almighty 4x4.
The people that criticize THG for it's bias toward performance products are short sighted and seriously lacking perspective. Take a look around the internet and see how many article are out there that favor Core 2 over K8. It's not this site, it's a global trend (or a global conspiracy if you ask the right nuts).
Just by using the word fanboy in the thread title you have discredited this thread.
October 26, 2007 3:02:21 PM

cpburns said:
TH favors Intel, just as I would, these days. Why? because they currently make better processors. Look in my sig. I built that 2 years ago, and it was a monster. The previous machine was a XP 2800+ system; before that, a XP 1800+. I would love to own an Intel machine right now.



DING DING DING


Intel makes better products. GET OVER IT. Unless they benchmark how good you feel about donating to a non-profit charity like AMD when you by an inferior processor AMD won't be winning many benchmarks.
October 26, 2007 3:10:47 PM

Geez....will AMD fanboy's whining ever stop?

THG is made for enthusiasts, and they serve the enthusiasts. So of course their reviews have enthusiasts in mind.
October 26, 2007 3:18:50 PM

Tell me more about my... Pentiums.

:lol: . o O (I said.. huh..uh..huh Pentiums)
a b à CPUs
October 26, 2007 3:59:11 PM

Actually I am well ... an AMD fanboi too.

I like my AMD products ... the systems I have here are all pretty good ... they are all gaming boxes as such.

Iv'e given THG a few broadsides bedore ... and made a few apologies too.

Fact is at the moment the C2D's are better cpu's ... particularly for enthusiasts ... because of superior thermals and headroom etc.

That doesn't mean AMD systems are crap ... far from it they are just a bit off the pace.

If you invest in decent ram, graphics mobo, psu, RAID0, then there isn't much in it actually ... until you overclock.

Fact is Intel have a superior process at present and the FSB issue just isn't as big as many of us thought it would be. Mainly because those Israeli boys reworked wonders on the c2d cache and prefetchers etc.

They OC very well and the cache etc hides the bottleneck of the fsb for most issues ... plus oc'ers jack the damm thing up to hell anyway.

End result Intel is the bomb for most things at present.

Oh well ... I can live with that.

I can't throw away all my ddr systems orphaned from 939, and my AM2's sit praying for something phenom.

I thought the 5000+ article was very AMD friendly ... so the pro Intel comments seem a bit incongruous with this article.

There are plenty of fanbois from both sides here ... makes it interesting ... provided ppl don't get all arced up and stupid about it.


:) 
October 26, 2007 5:16:45 PM

THG is like fox news - "fair and balanced"

but conservative in its point of view
October 26, 2007 5:43:08 PM

dragonsprayer said:
THG is like fox news - "fair and balanced"

but conservative in its point of view


Thats funny, Im willing to bet that every left wing nut out there would strongly disagree with you ;) 
October 26, 2007 5:50:05 PM

pete4r said:
Where on the website did they indicate that this is "Tom's Hardware Enthusiest Guide" ?!?! It is very silly to say any hardware or tech site out there is "Enthusiest Only"


The mainstream market audience does not know or care what goes into their computer, just as long as it works.

I would venture to say that if you read this site, you are enthused by the wonders of modern computing. Dont let your self get confused... this IS an enthusiest site.
October 26, 2007 5:56:28 PM

Quote:
It's a fact: In the past Intel paid Tomshardware to favor them. Everyone knows that.


I'm not saying that you're a liar, but would you care to provide any proof of your statement?
October 26, 2007 6:04:43 PM

If anything Toms Hardware would be an AMD fanatic... and here's why...

Although it would be easy to say that Tom's is more favorable towards Intel because Intel might purchase more advertising than their smaller competitor, that would assume Tom's has an incredibly short-sighted view of the processor market. If AMD goes out of business or becomes a non-competitor, guess what happens to progress? It slows a crawl... and honestly, how excited would you be to read about the next Pentium that offers a 1% performance increase? Would if you had to wait 12-18 months for that new processor? Sites like this thrive on rapidly advancing product lines... it's in this site's best interest for AMD to remain a viable competitor.

October 26, 2007 9:13:05 PM

I hope you factor in that oc chip will out perform a non oc chip in many cases.

The optimal fsb is around 1500-1600

so a system with a 2.4ghz chip at 3ghz (333fsb) should out perform a stock 3ghz chip (1066) for a 266fsb stock. ok - its only 1-2% and this is all theoretical


i guessed on the 333 i too lazy to calcualte it
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 27, 2007 5:23:10 AM

Well if I remember correctly earlier this week Toms did a review on the new Black Edition CPU from AMD and they matched it with a similar priced C2D and didn't OC the C2D to match the clock speeds and showed that they were just about even.

Fact is that right now Intel has the best chips and a lot of articles, such as the one about Cache performance, was easier to just use 3 different cache sizes offered but Intel.

I can say the main reason that they don't include a lot of the newer articles don't include AMD CPUs is because there are not that many "new" AMD chips to review. Pretty much every AMD chip has been tested and put on the CPU charts and comparing them to a newer technology is pretty much useless.

Once Barcy and Penryn come out though it will be a different story. This will open up the doors to see which CPU is the best and thats like 2 weeks away.

I agree too that they need to retest the GPUs since ATIs new 7.10 adds a lot of horsepower to the HD2k series.
!