INCORRECT PIC IN LATEST THG CPU ARTICLE!!!

[Spitfire_x86]

INCORRECT PIC IN LATEST THG CPU ARTICLE!!!

Here's the link of the page <A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-12.html " target="_new">http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-12.html </A>

Here's the direct link to the pic <A HREF="http://tau12.pair.com/sysdoc/cpu/20030217/images/p4_3.jpg " target="_new">http://tau12.pair.com/sysdoc/cpu/20030217/images/p4_3.jpg </A>

A Celeron (Northwood) is described as a P4 2 GHz! And it runs at 1.525V instead of 1.75V Willamette P4 or 1.5V Nothwood "A" P4

<b> "You can put lipstick on a pig, but hey, it's still a pig!" - RobD </b>

 

[MeTaLrOcKeR]

if u look carefully thats not the only problem in the article.....that article is so flawed i dont know if i have the tiem to point everything out..........

he said hes using an ABIT KT7 with the KT133 Chipset right ??? than he displays a picture of the ASUS A7V133 with the KT133A Chipset......he didnt mentioned the A7V133 anywhere else....so WTF???

that and theres no benchmarks for the 800MHz Orion Slot A Athlon Classic......

He also stated that there engineering sample AMD K6-III 500MHz which they gave back to AMD would have stomped all over the PII 450MHz in benchmarks...and yet the Celeron 400 somehow is faster than any ok the K6 series CPU's?? (this isnt even true i think sum 1 severly [-peep-] this up) as the K6-III with the 256Kb of full speed ondie L2 cache was quite a speedy chip that and having a 100Mhz FSB.....

theres many more flaws that i can point out but i dont feel like it cuz no one from THG actually cares..or will fix them.......

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=13597" target="_new">-MeTaL RoCkEr</A>

 

[andlcs]

<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-19.html" target="_new">Here</A> It says It is an A XP but it is a Athlon MP.

<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-20.html" target="_new">And Here</A> It says it is an A XP 2200+ T-Bred B but it is a T-Bred A (AXDA2200DKV3C AIRCA from 14th week of 2002 (I don't think T-Bred Bs existed this time - correct me if I'm wrong ).

 

[Civilized]

THG has let me down in their recent articles....I have been turning to anandtech for reviews and using the THG forums for tech talk...

<font color=green>Without question, the greatest invention in the history of mankind is beer. Oh, I grant you that the wheel was also a fine invention, but the wheel does not go nearly as well with pizza<font color=green>

 

[Spitfire_x86]

Yes, I also noticed that, Athlon MP pic instead of Athlon XP pic

<b> "You can put lipstick on a pig, but hey, it's still a pig!" - RobD </b>

 

[vegandago]

I have only been visiting THG for about a year but I've noticed the quality of the articles go down drastically over the last few months. I used to use THG as my definitive resource for reviews and comparisons... now I hardly take anything seriously around here. I also go to anandtech more.

"There is no dark or light side, only power and those too weak to seek it."

 

[Crashman]

Yes, I found many flaws, like one of them said a TX chipset only supports 64MB (I had one in my sever that USED more than that, and had MUCH more than that), they also mentioned the Mendicino at .18 micron and 2.0v (exceeds Intel spec for .18 micron, and was introduced during Intel's .25 micron days). Etc.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>

 

[Spitfire_x86]

Tom himself should write most of the articles now, as he used to do before. This can make THG as good as it used to be

<b> "You can put lipstick on a pig, but hey, it's still a pig!" - RobD </b>

 

[Grampa]

Yes, the i430TX chipset supports up to 256MB, but its onboard L2 cache does only support 64MB, the rest of the memory remains uncached.

 

[MeTaLrOcKeR]

that depends on onboard L2 cache size...not chipset type....

i believe when u have only 512KB of L2 on-board it supports something like only 256MB of ram and when u have 1MB its 512.....its something like that.......

and Crashman i also noticed he said the Mendocino core was using 0.18 micron....LoL...yea back in 1998/1999 we ALL used 0.18....common now....where do these gusy get there info from ??? The celeron used this technology b4 the P3 ?? i dont think so....

Only thing the PPGA Celery had an advantage of over PII's and even the first PIII's were the ondie full sppeed L2 Cache when pumped up the FSB to 100Mhz those chips were real show stoppers....

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=13597" target="_new">-MeTaL RoCkEr</A>

 

[Crashman]

Yes, when I found my TX server, which had 512MB SDRAM, was using only 145MB, I pulled one of the 256MB sticks to use it in another system. It did "see" all 512MB, and it did "use" more than 64MB.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>

 

[MeTaLrOcKeR]

Exactly my point =)

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=13597" target="_new">-MeTaL RoCkEr</A>