Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

THG vs Rest of the world

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 23, 2003 6:20:20 PM

I just couldn't stop thinking about this and I thought I'd share my thoughts with you. Here it goes. As soon as I returned home today I got on the internet to check out all the A64 reviews out there. I firstly visited THG byt I didn't read the whole review in detail. I read the coclusion though careful and I was very disappointed by A64.

Then, I went to visit Hexus, Hardocp, Aces Hardware, Gamers Depot, Hot Hardware, Extremetech and AMDZone. I read only the coclusion in *every* site and what I can see is that they all agree between them, but all disagree with THG!!! Yes, some sites make some comments about the price of A64s but no site has any doubts about how excellent performers they are, except THG.

This also made me remember that THG is only one of very few sites that actually suggested 5900 Ultra over R9800 Pro in one of their reviews. What do you think about this? Am I say something wrong here? If not, what's the problem?

More about : thg rest world

September 23, 2003 6:35:27 PM

THG reviews used to be excellent and unbiased, now I'm not so confident. Alot of people will only bother to browse through the benchmarks, which makes me suspicious of why they have a P4EE overclocked to 3.6ghz in there.

Basically, I used to take THG's reviews as gospel a couple years ago, now I often end up taking them with a pinch of salt.
September 23, 2003 6:59:45 PM

I think THG seems to getting a big biased. I just read the <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1884" target="_new">Athlon 64 review from anandtech </A>, as well as others. They seem to give althon 64 alot more credit than THG does, alteast it shows it compete fairly the same as p4 3.2 EE.

What is REALLY STRANGE is that 3.6 ghz p4 EE. I only skimed through the review and didn't see any catch anywhere about it being OC p4 EE. But I guess it is because I intel only launched 3.2 ghz didn't hear of a 3.6 ghz yet. If didn't really mention OC it is really misleading on THG's part. Anyhow if THG did overclock p4 EE why didn't they oc the athlon 64s? It is very questionable why THG inlcuded that.
Related resources
September 23, 2003 7:07:10 PM

Quote:
What is REALLY STRANGE is that 3.6 ghz p4 EE.

Remember THG's old article claiming something about a P4 3.6 and sporting a photochopped P4 ES? Deja vu...

Someone else probably remembers where exactly the link is for that one.

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>
September 23, 2003 7:11:45 PM

You guys should read the review. It states that the a64 fx beats the p4 except for the ee, which is right around the corner. I have yet to check the other sites to see if the benchmarks are the same.

<font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue> :cool:
September 23, 2003 7:12:52 PM

Yeah, people on other sites are refering to Tom as having an Intel bias. It isn't too surprising given the current benchmark. The inclusion of the P4 EE 3.6 is really ridiculous for a paper release. If they're going to OC a PAPER cpu why not OC the CPU in question that is not PAPER?

The article also claims that 64bit software isn't available for the A64. I think there are ways to take a peak at this feature and there is also linux... But I won't blame them for not wanting to do AMD's marketing job.

The other grip I have with the article is the "Benchmarking done right" section. They claim that using the lower details and lower resolutions result in more accurate results. I'm not sure if this was done if AMD's or Intel's favor but there is no reason to not include at least a few higher resolution benchmarks.
September 23, 2003 7:19:06 PM

look at the anandtech review for 64 bit benchmarks. I has some nice linux benchmarks for A64 near the end.
September 23, 2003 7:28:51 PM

Ja, Ace's actually had a beta of Win64 for AMD. Ran some interesting tests on that...

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>
September 23, 2003 7:33:43 PM

Quote:
You guys should read the review. It states that the a64 fx beats the p4 except for the ee, which is right around the corner. I have yet to check the other sites to see if the benchmarks are the same.

Other sites also include the P4EE in their reviews but still, come to different conclusions than THG. Some sites say that the FX performs better or worse than others but NONE says that the P4EE is the clear winner like THG does (it has given the performance crown to the P4EE .. typed in bold in their conclusion).
September 23, 2003 7:51:34 PM

Also add X-bit Labs to the list "Rest of the world" !!!!
September 23, 2003 8:01:25 PM

Well they did compare a oc ee, that does make a difference. 3.6 while the other site only used the the 3.2. If you look at thg it shows that the a64 fx beats the 3.2 and 50% of the time it beats the 3.4. While the 3.6 beats the a64 fx most of the time. I assume that thg is think that intel is going to be bring out a 3.6 ghz and that is why they have it in the benchmark.

I agree that they should only have benched the p4 that out as of today not up and coming cpus.

<font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue> :cool:
September 23, 2003 8:09:06 PM

Nod, you got it on the head. The 3.2/ee and the amd64 are about equal, but the 3.6/ee should and more or a less does blow it out of the water... very logically actually... 400mhz is a nice chunk of speed. The fact that the amd managed to win 15 benchies against a processor clocked 400mhz higher than it's rating is really an accomplishment imo.

As an overclocker, I would have liked to have seen the 64 clocked up to about 3.6 also...

Shadus
September 23, 2003 8:16:21 PM

The a64 fx is between the 3.2ee and 3.4ee, it usual beats the 3.2ee and it keeps up with the 3.4ee. I think that it does really well, the cost of the fx to the 3.2ee is more.

<font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue> :cool:
September 23, 2003 8:24:07 PM

We must remember however, that the a64 must compete with scotty, which will probably perform better than even a 3.6ghz ee.

I also must add, that it seems that all of the a64 chipsets still have problems to iron out, and probably some more performance, they are being compared to intels tried and true platform.


Proud owner of DOS 3.3 :smile:
September 23, 2003 8:26:17 PM

Consider this...THe A64 is a disappointment no matter how you slice it. If it barely beats the top current intel processor in a few benchmarks, its not really big news... If it beats the top intel processor by say 25%, then that would be big news, but it doesn't. These hardware sites live off of reporting news, and if there isn't any, they try to make a buzz about something. It benefits them to report the performance crown going back and forth rather than staying on intel's 'head'.

Scamtron doesn't like my sig...
September 23, 2003 8:37:10 PM

Quote:
Consider this...THe A64 is a disappointment no matter how you slice it.

I can't say I agree with you. The reason that the FX is not trashing out the fastest P4 is because Intel acted very cleverly by releasing the P4 EE two weeks ago. If you compare the FX to the 3.2c then you will get the 25% difference you are looking for in many benchmarks. Now, we have to wait and see Prescott's performance. I am really very curious how the FX vs Prescott fight will turn out, especially if a FX-53 model (2.4GHz) is released by December (most probably), when Prescott will be released. The way I see it, nothing is final yet, and everything comes down to whether each company will be able to ramp up the speed of their new CPUs.
September 23, 2003 8:45:01 PM

I find it fishy when I see that the a64 and p4 have the same numbers. are they rounding up or what.

<font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue> :cool:
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2003 9:23:39 PM

Quote:
The fact that the amd managed to win 15 benchies against a processor clocked 400mhz higher than it's rating is really an accomplishment imo.

And then you actually READ the conclusion and found out it was the 3.2EE that won 32, compared to the FX-51 winning 15.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
September 23, 2003 11:27:23 PM

Quote:
And then you actually READ the conclusion and found out it was the 3.2EE that won 32, compared to the FX-51 winning 15.

And you look at a lot of other reviews, and read that the FX-51 is actually right about on par with the P4EE 3.2--sometimes better, sometimes worse. Head over to [H] or Ace's and you'll see what I mean.

Add to that, the FX-51 is available <i>now</i> (newegg lists it as in-stock), and P4EE is essentially paper-launched. P4EE isn't even stocked AFAIK and won't be for another month or two, and even when it is, it's a low-volume "non-mainstream" part. Intel cleverly announced it without actually being able to get it into end-users' hands yet.

Apparently that doesn't matter to THG though. Volkel took the P4EE sample, ran with it, OC'd it to 3.6, and pitted it against the FX-51. And of course the FX-51 got whipped--by a CPU that really doesn't even yet exist for public consumption (and won't for quite a while).

(The Ace's review is really quite interesting, as they actually got their hands on a beta copy of WinXP 64-bit.)

As for me, I'm <i>very</i> interested in Athlon64. I run Linux, so I can easily get the nice 64-bit advantages. Hell, it would be fun getting LinuxFromScratch working on that bad boy; the challenge of making LFS work on Alpha is wearing off a bit. :eek: 

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>
September 23, 2003 11:47:37 PM

and you also forgot that the fx takes ecc memory and you cant buy 400mhz ddr ecc memory yet. so you cant use the fx that well. Also imo the fx loses a lot of ground for the simple reason that it uses ecc memory and i think a lot of people are going to wait till the non ecc memory version comes out. thats not going to happen till early next year so personally im skeptical of the situation. In otherwords the p4ee is market gimick and the fx is not a feasible product for enthusiast and mainstream consumers. Although im not impressed with the 64 series im going to wait till the non ecc comes out and maybe how it fares against the new prescott.. good job amd your back in the game just have to get ready for the big battle ahead.
September 23, 2003 11:50:22 PM

P4EE is a joke created to steal the A64 thunder. It was a great idea but I don't see it as a viable product esp at the price point.
A paper release of the P4EE should not really even be compared to the A64 which is available NOW.
Typical of the industry but we as enthusiasts should know better.

The issue about THG is nothing new.
They are intelboys and its just the way it is.
Anandtech has been, and is really the place to find your unbiased objective reviews.
I respect Tom but he needs to get his reviewers straightened out.
But I'm sure theres big money being tossed around for the favors.
I'd like to be proven wrong, and the best way for that to happen is for Toms to happen to fall in line with almost EVERY SINGLE credible source out there.

Everyone who posts here likes THG, but even we were wary of the "Graphics Card Buyers Guide" that was out some weeks ago. It made the FX series to appear quite presentable while I couldnt duplicate the results from other sources.
You can make things look drastically different when you pick certain benchmarks and certain settings and its nice to know we have multiple sources to compare against.

Toms is the "big dog" in the hardware community and it would be a shame to see it lose its reputation like this.

-----
eden is my intel/ati superboy
September 24, 2003 12:01:40 AM

Funny - I read the same reviews and found the conclusions to be marginal at best. I guess we read different languages ...




<b><font color=red> “Liberals have many tails and chase them all.” – H.L. Mencken </font color=red><b>
September 24, 2003 12:24:28 AM

Sorry Double Post


My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by UFO_WARVIPER on 09/23/03 08:32 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 24, 2003 12:27:09 AM

I remember when the Athlon XP Palomino was launched, they didn't overclock the CPUs back then. If they did overclock it would be done in a separate analysis of the processors. I prefer that style better. I noticed that when Northwood was launched, THG showed overclocked Northwood processors in Gray bars. I didn't really like it, and I wouldn't like it if they showed AMD processors overclocked in the review either. Now in this review, THG didn't even use the gray bars for overclocked processors, which makes comparisons of processors more difficult, especially for the average end-user non-enthusiast who doensn't know better that the other processors at the top are overclocked and don't even exist yet as announced CPUs.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
September 24, 2003 12:30:53 AM

Quote:
and you also forgot that the fx takes ecc memory and you cant buy 400mhz ddr ecc memory yet.

Umm...yes you can. Even at CAS2.

<A HREF="http://www.mushkin.com/epages/Mushkin.storefront/3f70e3..." target="_new">- Click -</A>
<A HREF="http://www.mushkin.com/epages/Mushkin.storefront/3f70e3..." target="_new">- Click -</A>

To be fair, they are pricey. But the FX-51 has become the new god part...and even if you cheap out and go for a single-channel A64 3200+, it still makes one hell of a showing.

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>
September 24, 2003 12:44:46 AM

Quote:
viable product esp at the price point.

And the A64 FX, with its $600+ prices and expensive RAM, is any better?
September 24, 2003 12:47:12 AM

If anybody takes a quick look at the benchmark graphs, he will probably think P4-EE wins 95% times and the difference is sometimes really big.

Another notable thing is, they messed the graph bar colors many times.



----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>
September 24, 2003 2:02:29 AM

I wish THG hadn't used the new spyware DivX codec for the video.
September 24, 2003 2:12:53 AM

They used the latest DivX 5.10 codec.

I use firewall and prevent that Gator spyware from accessing the web. I don't know how much annoying it can be.

You can use spyware free version of DivX codec for playing the movie.

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>
September 24, 2003 2:22:31 AM

I know you hate Intel for their prices. Well, AMD now has 700$ CPUs with the least expensive at 400$, so I must wonder how you would feel now Spitty.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
September 24, 2003 2:40:14 AM

I feel nobody should buy Athlon 64 FX. A64 (754) o'ced to 2.2 GHz perform almost equal to A64 FX.

A64 3200+ costs much less than P4 3.2C and A64 FX costs ~equal to P4 Extreme Edition. I can't say that AMD pricing is worse than Intel.

Moreover, it will take at least 2Q 2005 for me to buy a Athlon 64. So I really don't care about A64 price right now.

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>
September 24, 2003 2:47:05 AM

Quote:
You can make things look drastically different when you pick certain benchmarks and certain settings and its nice to know we have multiple sources to compare against.

You sure can.
Quote:

Toms is the "big dog" in the hardware community and it would be a shame to see it lose its reputation like this.

If you browse many of the most popular forums it already has heh.
September 24, 2003 2:50:11 AM

So much for the Sub-$200 enthusiast processor days. It looks like its back at old times again. I wonder when the A64s will get a really good bang for buck ratio.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
September 24, 2003 2:59:56 AM

So, that means some time next year we will see reasonable prices for the new tech. I hope Presscott has a good p/p ratio or at least makes the p/p ratio better for the current stuff.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
September 24, 2003 5:37:10 AM

I think you are forgetting a few details here. They are charging $700 for a processor that currently has no competition (P4 EE doesn't exist, and probably won't for the next couple of months). If, and when is released, I'll get back to you on that!

Also, they are charging $400 for a processor that clearly outperforms the 3.2c (with a few exceptions of course). You can see this in every other review site, I don't know what THG says. So, we are talking in the worst case senario that the A64 3200+ is equal in performance with the 3.2c but costs $200 or 30% less. So I don't find this pricing paranoid, although there is no way I can afford this kind of processors. Also, these two are *brand new* products. Prices will slowly drop. I don't know about Prescott or P4 EE but they don't exist now, so it doesn't matter.
September 24, 2003 5:42:03 AM

Yes, I guess we do read different languages. Show me one more site please that says that the P4 EE is the clear winner over Athlon 64 FX. To be honest with you, I don't care which is faster. I can't afford either one. But as an enthousiast, I would like to know what's the best. And all other sites I've visited praise A64s for their performance, except THG. And I am not even taking into account that the 3.2GHz P4 EE is a CPU that won't exist for a long time. No need to mention 3.4GHz or 3.6GHz I think which were also included in the review!
September 24, 2003 5:43:39 AM

Why would I pay the same for a cpu if I know it will be out in a month or two.
In fact it will cost me less, cause the mb and ram cost less then the a64. Also all the people who bought intel boards now, can use this new cpu.

Well I hope I gave you something to think about. Oh I for got, you can also overclock the [-peep-] out of the p4 ee compare to a64.
Like I said before, image a p4 ee with a fsb over 1000 and at a speed of 3.6, it will rip the current a64 a new one.

<font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue> :cool:
September 24, 2003 11:14:58 AM

It really is THG, vs the WORLD.
THG's creditibility is dyeing all over the net, to the benchmarking community and enthusiast.
Well this serves TomsBiasWare right.
Let it be known, this site is a fag and has no creditibility!
September 24, 2003 1:03:21 PM

The bottom line is that the A64 is just another processor...there is not that much about it to get excited about, so it behooves the hardware news sites to portray it as more exciting than it really is. Its a terrible choice for a processor right now. Is it a socket A? If not then you have to shell out even more money for a new MOBO.

Scamtron doesn't like my sig...
September 24, 2003 1:17:10 PM

I agree with you when you say that the A64 is just another processor. There isn't anything too fancy about this processor but on the other hand, it's not a flop as many try to say either. Right now, especially the A64 3200+ looks a very good choice for a processor to me. Maybe when Prescott comes out, this will no longer be true but right now, AMD has a processor performing the same as Intel's flagship and costs about $200 less. And also, a Socket 754 mobo has a great upgrade potential.

Anyway, I wasn't that much interested in the FX anyway. I will be when it's released sometime in Q1 2004, as 939pin version, using regular DDR400 memory.
September 24, 2003 1:51:50 PM

I think the 'flop talk' probably stems from the extended wait for the processor to be launched. After all that time, you would expect something really good to come at the end of it. WHen it comes out as 'just above par', dissappointment sets in.

Scamtron doesn't like my sig...
September 24, 2003 2:01:04 PM

lol why is the a64 a terrible cpu to get? it's AT LEAST as good as the P4 3.2, it's $200 cheaper and it's 64 bit.

yeah it really sux :) 
September 24, 2003 2:16:32 PM

Quote:
it's $200 cheaper and it's 64 bit.


What you just said illustrates why it would be a bad choice. You can OC a Barton to a 3200 witout batting an eyelash, and you could buy [5 of them for the price of a A64.

Scamtron doesn't like my sig...
September 24, 2003 2:22:35 PM

To everyone who thinks that THG is biased:
I went through the THG benchmarks and counted the number of times that the <i>stock</i> Intel CPUs beat the A64 FX. (Meaning that no 3.4/3.6GHz P4EEs were included in this count.) I counted <i>stock</i> Intel beating AMD 27 to 14. (I'm not sure where THG got their win-count numbers frankly.)

Here however is how it breaks down:
Gaming = Intel 9 / AMD 10
Encoding = Intel 8 / AMD 0
Real Use = Intel 6 / AMD 3
Synthetic = Intel 4 / AMD 1

For games it's a tie between Intel and AMD.
For encoding Intel totally rocks AMD's world.
For real-world applications Intel is stronger.

And what this shows is that even if you chop out <i>all</i> synthetic benchmarks and <i>all</i> encoding benchmarks so that you drop the Intel bias completely (some would even argue that this would heavily bias it towards AMD) you still end up with Intel on top, though in a <i>much</i> closer race.

Now, one could <i>easily</i> pick and choose certain benchmarks to make AMD look much better. Just as one could easily pick and choose certain hardware to make AMD look better. For example, THG went out of their way to up the performance of their hard drive system so that it couldn't possibly become a bottleneck for determining the CPU's performance by using a SATA RAID0 array. Is anyone else doing this?

For example, Anandtech was only able to squeeze a piddly 4.02 GB/s of bandwidth for their P4 system. THG on the other hand got 4.95GB/s of bandwidth on their P4 system. That's almost an entire 1GB/s of bandwidth lost in Anandtech's P4 setup! Yet Anandtech was able to squeeze 5.315GB/s for their Athlon64 FX system, which is <i>much</i> closer to the extreme that THG pushed their's to for 5.6GB/s.

Anandtech biased? <i>Never!</i>

I briefly glanced at HardOCP's setup as well and had a similar laugh. The P4 was paired on an Intel mobo (Intel boards are known for rock-stability but low performance) while the A64FX was thrown onto an Asus mobo (Asus boards are known for extreme performance).

HardOCP biased? <i>Never!</i>

I obviously don't have time to go through every single review one by one. But frankly it's usually very easy to determine how biased a review is likely to be. Obviously the more benchmarks that are run the better because this gives a more rounded view. Also anyone who gives very little information on their test platforms is immediately suspect. And as always anyone who configures one platform significantly better than another platform is biased.

When the scores between Intel and AMD are as close as they are right now, even a tiny bias can make a <i>huge</i> difference. So far I haven't seen a single review site go through as much effort as THG did to <i>remove</i> all possible bias. If other review sites hadn't been so lazy in their reviewing process the results would have differed greatly. As far as I'm concerned THG is the only review site that <i>hasn't</i> biased their A64 FX benchmarks. Yet if you read the comments made in THG's review, it's very clearly biased, <i>towards the A64 FX</i>.

<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>
September 24, 2003 3:00:53 PM

Bastard, you stole my thunder!

Shadus
September 24, 2003 3:34:07 PM

Quote:
Bastard, you stole my thunder!

Hey, that's <i>Bastard Operator From Hell</i> thank you very much. I've worked hard to earn that title. :p 

Just kidding. :)  I'm actually a software engineer, so that's Bastard Programmer From Hell. BPFH just doesn't have the same ring though. Neither does BSEFH.

Strangely enough though that makes me reminisce all the way back to high school when I used the pen name Zeus's Pet Rat. So maybe I'm just used to stealing thunder...

<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>
!