Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel bribing THG? Is it possible?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2003 5:21:15 AM

WTF are you on, crack? You don't remember how Intel mistreated THG concerning their exposer of the PIII 1.13 Coppermine flaw? Or Tom's attack on the i820 Rambus chipset? Or Tom's general attack on Rambus? Or Tom's attack on inside deals between Intel and Rambus before their joining? Or the fact that Tom himself testified against Rambus in the memory makers lawsuits? Or Tom's attacks on the Socket 423 platform, or the low IPC of the P4 Willy?

And now you think these guys work for Intel...let me ask you, can I have some of what you're smoking?

So many review sites give you EXACTLY what you want, slanting all their articles toward VIA chipsets (until recently), nVidia graphics cards, and AMD processors. Why? This is the stuff many "enthusiast" WANT to buy. If it has a problem or fails to outperform the competition, can they report that? NO. Because for them to report the truth makes YOU call them biased.

Remember the first heatsink video? The AMD burned up, and thousands of readers left Tom's because they didn't want to accept the truth. The idea behind that test was this: What happens when the custodian knocks over your PC on the floor and the heatsink comes off. Several other explainations were provided, such as the sink comming loose in shipping, etc. All focused towards reasons OEM's might not choose AMD. Tom's told you that they were hoping the heat protection would respond quickly enough to prevent catastrophy, but it didn't. They were as suprised as you maybe, but many readers still left.

Does this not speak of what kind of people are in the hardware "enthusiast" community? Many of you act more like rednecks than experts. You whine like a bunch of 8 year olds finding out PeeWee Herman was arrested for masturbating in public, whenever test results don't show you what you want to see. You sound like the people who still claim "OJ didn't do it". I'd be surprised you didn't hold nVidia responsible for killing 3DFX and boycott them, except that this was likely before your time.

Instead of trying to make THG into an AMDZone or Viahardware, why not direct your comments toward making the site more cutting edge, making the charts simpler and easier to read, making improvements in their comparisons? Why are you even here if all you can do is cry, instead of making constructive suggestions?

If you're among this group of quasi enthusiast who can't take a little criticism, please leave now, I'm tired of your arguments.

You want to hear a valid suggestion for improving THG? How about this: THG, Pleas quit promoting SFF cubes! Thank you!

<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>

More about : intel bribing thg

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2003 5:25:35 AM

Captain Obvious recommends Crashman take 2 asprin and go lie down!

<b><font color=red>Captain Obvious To The Rescue!!!</font color=red></b>
September 24, 2003 5:27:52 AM

I kind of agree - I don't think there is a massive conspiracy theory, if anything it's more likely the reviewer in question fell for the temptation Intel presented him with by giving him an unlocked CPU sample (that wasn't a coincidence).

However, you have to admit some of the decisions made in how to present the THG review, plus some of the actual numbers they came up with and the benchmarks they chose to emphasise, look a little fishy when compared to several other reputable hardware sites out there though don't you?

Personally I didn't really give all that much credit to the THG review after I weighed it against many other sources out there - I don't think it was very well balanced, kind of like the recent video card guide. This is more a reflection of the reviewers THG is employing than THG itself.
Related resources
September 24, 2003 5:31:27 AM

I love your name and how you are using it. It is just to funny, or I have had to much to drink.

<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 5:34:48 AM

The thing is that crash man and I have pointed out the test are very close. The only difference is that they include the 3.4 and 3.6 p4 ee. Also thier is another site that does have the 3.4 p4 ee on it and they compare it to a oc a64. Guess what they are very close to the same score.
So I don't understand why you think that thg is so wrong.

<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 5:48:56 AM

First, let me tell you (as I already mentioned in another post) that for me, it doesn't matter which is faster. I can't afford either one so at least for now, I don't care! My next upgrade won't be before Christmas 2004, even later than that.

But the reason I started the thread "THG vs Rest of the world" is because as an enthousiast, I am trying to find out what's going on here. And what I see is all major hardware review sites praise A64 for its performance, with THG being the only exception. It's also the only site that has declared P4EE as the clear winner. So I ask my self. Who is right? THG or everyone else (Ace's, Hardocp, X-bit Labs, Anand, Tech-Report ...)?

Also this brings back in my memory that when the 5900 Ultra was reviewd, THG was one of the 3-4 sites that actually reccomended 5900U over 9800P. Which as time passes by (and even then), is proved to be the wrong conclusion.
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2003 5:53:09 AM

As for the scores, lets look to recent history: Most sites claim the Abit IS7 is a top performer. Tom's puts it near the bottom. With so many others at the top, could it be that ALL those companies bribed Tom's to diss the IS7? Wouldn't it be more likely that Tom's simply configured the systems a bit differently than the other reviewers?

I think the differences between the FX-51 and 3.2EE are small. I think these differences are similar to what I've seen on other sites. Some sites show the FX-51 winning more benchmarks than the 3.2EE. Most show the oposite, but to a smaller extent than THG (like 11-9 instead of 32-15). None seem to use as MANY tests as THG did. So could it be that Tom's just used slightly different configurations, and often used additional benchmarks? Doesn't this seem likely?

I think the THG article conclusion was a little more likely to favor the winner, while some other sites had the P4 winning a few more benchmarks but the A64 sounding better in the conclusion. And a few sites had the FX winning, yes, but that's not as common.

Overall I think the way the information was presented is what pisses the most people off. IF the conclusion would have said "A64 Wins!" and then explained away the FX-51 loosing benchmarks by stating it was better for supporting future 64-bit applications, and the A64 better because of its lower price, than the 3.2C...many people would have hailed THG as heros!

But they presented the truth: 64 bit is not here, and probably won't be significant for a very long time. You can't explain away the performance difference if you don't go for the 64-bit hype!

But I'm <b>glad</b> some people buy into the 64-bit hype, because these early adopters will pave the way towards the NEXT generation of programs, for the NEXT generation of CPU!

<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>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2003 6:03:59 AM

Toms Hardware says the P4-EE is better overall.
Tech Report says the FX is better.

Captain Obvious says read as many reviews as you can and take the average!

<b><font color=red>Captain Obvious To The Rescue!!!</font color=red></b>
September 24, 2003 6:21:43 AM

Well here the thing. Read More then one review. It like Reading Athlon64 on Amd site or Ietel Site. To get More of a Fact. Thing I did was Read about 7 Reviews And amd seems to do better In some things And Intel dose better in other things. But each Site dose things differnt. Tweaks and such.

I was not going for Overclocking for I dont want a heater I want a computer. And With computers So Fast right now Who Bloody cares about %3 We will not a See a change.

But One thing Intel and Amd has it Stranghs And weakness. And buying the Cpu. it depends on what you do.
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2003 6:24:23 AM

I use Anandtech as my primary source of benchmarks. It looks like the P4 3.2EE edges out the FX-51 there. But Anandtech downplays this even further. I believe it's politically correct to support AMD whenever possible, when you have a group of rabid fanatics as your major income source, THG has yet to take this advice.

<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>
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2003 6:28:12 AM

Oh, THG had also said the 5900U was faster than the 9800 Pro. This was true at the time, in DX8 it IS faster. When the DX9 debacle broke, THG was right there with the rest showing nVidia's faults.

Lest we forget THG has also been accused of being ATI biased.

It seems like every review looks biased, no matter which brand wins. Perhaps that's because THG isn't using political correctness in downplaying any leads by one brand or another.

<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 24, 2003 6:37:48 AM

Well i will like to wait till intel openly responds to the A64s, it will be nice to watch wad else intel has up its sleeves besides the p4 ee...
September 24, 2003 6:41:32 AM

It seems the THG review says that the A64 FX is faster in games... AMD also claims that it is faster.. But the P4s are faster in other aspects... we have to decide ourslves in the end which one is more of a upgrade for the individual...
September 24, 2003 10:59:59 AM

I don't believe THG is biased, but I've had enough of the verbose reviews and the crap columns. The fanbus review was taking the piss; what next, fan guards?

I'll wait for the dust to settle before making my next move (i.e. a consensus needs to form), but conspiracy theories are silly.

"Some mice have two buttons. Macintosh has one. So it's extremely difficult to push the wrong button." - Apple ad. circa 1984.
September 24, 2003 2:09:37 PM

I agree with you Crash. A lot of people would not like the news that A64 is a marginal success if at all. Ergo, most hardware sites are telling you what you want to hear. Its called spin...You take the facts and make them say what you want. Case in point...ther hysteria we've seen this morning about "toms is biased, I'm leaving toms, toms is the devil, the sky is falling" . Tom denounced the A64 for what it was... less than stellar, and the anti-Tom's rhetoric starts flowing...wow...

Scamtron doesn't like my sig...
September 24, 2003 2:41:14 PM

Well lets clarify things. First off we are comparing a processor that we can buy today against a paper tiger. You can't get a p4 emergency edition at the moment so whats the point? for this reason alone all comparisons should be made between using the p4 3.2 standard edition processor. In all likelyhood, when the p4 EE becomes available in quantity a faster A64fx will be able to be had. If AMd were to send THG a A64FX clocked at 2.8 GHz with 4 meg of cache and tell THG it will be released sometime Q1 2004 should Tom's use it to test against the p4 EE? After all in effect this is exactly what Intel did. Intel cannot claim to be the current leader when you can't buy the product period.

Now a question. Did THG actually have 3 EE processors or did they overclock the p4 3.2 EE?

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
September 24, 2003 2:46:35 PM

I just want to say that I completely agree with you Crashman.

And unlike Omid, you <i>really</i> know how to rant well. Maybe THG should hire you to do their opinionated columns and kick Omid to the curb.

Oh, and also compare the P4's memory bandwidth at THG to it's bandwidth at Anandtech. Something strange this way comes...

<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>
* Edit: Added Omid line.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by slvr_phoenix on 09/24/03 09:48 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 24, 2003 3:20:45 PM

Quote:
Now a question. Did THG actually have 3 EE processors or did they overclock the p4 3.2 EE?

They had an engineering sample so that the multiplier was unlocked. So raise multi, keep same FSB, and claim you have a 3.4 or 3.6 or whatever you want. Same thing as in the photoshoped "Hot Contraband" P4 @ 3.6Ghz from a while back that did THE MOST to discredit THG. My point is, since the P4 EE will be available in November @ 3.2Ghz, running it at 3.4Ghz and 3.6Ghz is in fact overclocking a CPU that may never even be available at that speed, period.

Quote:
Intel cannot claim to be the current leader when you can't buy the product period.

Yup. After being on top for so long, Intel fanboys, particulalry Eden and Spud, are puking now on this forum instead of just sucking it up for a short time untill Prescott comes or they can buy a P4 EE for Christmass.
September 24, 2003 3:52:28 PM

Quote:
They had an engineering sample so that the multiplier was unlocked. So raise multi, keep same FSB, and claim you have a 3.4 or 3.6 or whatever you want.



Are you sure of this? If so, I am really LMAO at the total ivalidity of this review. I mean what the hell, why not overclock the A64FX as well if you are trying to keep an even playing field.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
September 24, 2003 4:05:54 PM

Quote:
They had an engineering sample so that the multiplier was unlocked. So raise multi, keep same FSB, and claim you have a 3.4 or 3.6 or whatever you want. Same thing as in the photoshoped "Hot Contraband" P4 @ 3.6Ghz from a while back

Did they use a 3.6 and claim it was a 3.2/3.4/anything else?
No.
Did they lie about it being available now?
No.
Did they include it to show :
a)how well the EE scales up?
b)how the A64 would fare against a processor that <i>might</i> be released by the time the A64 is available in meaningful quantities?
Yes.

Stop your bloody whingeing and accept it. They did nothing wrong by including this chip. if someone casually glances at the review and assumes the top bar is a 3.2EE P4, then that's entirely their own fault, not Tom's. I personally was interested to see how a P4EE would perform at that speed, should one be released.

---
<font color=red>The preceding text is assembled from information stored in an unreliable organic storage medium. As such it may be innacurate, incomplete, or completely wrong</font color=red> :wink:
September 24, 2003 4:08:45 PM

have you even read the review? There are more chips than just an overclocked P4EE and an A64 included you know...

---
<font color=red>The preceding text is assembled from information stored in an unreliable organic storage medium. As such it may be innacurate, incomplete, or completely wrong</font color=red> :wink:
September 24, 2003 4:23:26 PM

Quote:
Well lets clarify things. First off we are comparing a processor that we can buy today against a paper tiger. You can't get a p4 emergency edition at the moment so whats the point? for this reason alone all comparisons should be made between using the p4 3.2 standard edition processor. In all likelyhood, when the p4 EE becomes available in quantity a faster A64fx will be able to be had. If AMd were to send THG a A64FX clocked at 2.8 GHz with 4 meg of cache and tell THG it will be released sometime Q1 2004 should Tom's use it to test against the p4 EE? After all in effect this is exactly what Intel did. Intel cannot claim to be the current leader when you can't buy the product period.

That could not have been any more absurd. I suppose when the XP2600+ was paper launched, THG didn't use it later when it was never available, same as the XP2800+ huh?

Well well well:

<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020909/p4_3600-08.htm..." target="_new">http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020909/p4_3600-08.htm...;/A>

A month later and the XP2600+ is featured.

<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021114/p4_306ht-14.ht..." target="_new">http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021114/p4_306ht-14.ht...;/A>
My oh my! The XP2800+ which never came out until months later, is on the graphs!

Gee, I suppose THG deserves slapping.

--
<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 5:31:31 PM

Right on. I've had enough of the whining Cry babies. So Intel puts out Xeon clone? Whats FX51 but an Opertron clone. So is Intel to sit by and not offer the same thing? That's what compation is all about.
September 24, 2003 5:35:59 PM

i agree.

I dont understand some people. They get all upset because the company they love sucked. I mean, do u have stocks in that company? (i do for nVidia)

RIP Block Heater....HELLO P4~~~~~
120% nVidia Fanboy
PROUD OWNER OF THE GEFORCE FX 5950ULTRA <-- I wish this was me
waiting for aBox~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
September 24, 2003 5:36:04 PM

Amd releses A64 yesterday their stock down Intel up.
September 24, 2003 5:40:16 PM

that's has nothing to do with their performance

RIP Block Heater....HELLO P4~~~~~
120% nVidia Fanboy
PROUD OWNER OF THE GEFORCE FX 5950ULTRA <-- I wish this was me
waiting for aBox~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
September 24, 2003 5:40:25 PM

And at least Intel's rebranded Xeon runs on P4 mobos and doesn't require ECC RAM to run. (How many performance freaks do you know that use ECC?) So it's an actual desktop chip, even if it is a Xeon at heart.

AMD's rebranded Opteron however won't even touch a plain A64 mobo <i>and</i> needs the slower and more expensive ECC RAM just to run. So with AMD you end up with a complete and entire Opteron workstation, but with an Athlon label. Yeah. Great idea AMD.

<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 5:41:12 PM

Agree I'm not impressed with A64. What's it been 1.5 to 2 plus years for Hammer and this all we get. I would have thought Amd would have done more. What are the waiting for?
September 24, 2003 5:45:11 PM

What a great PR team Amd has!!!!
September 24, 2003 5:59:02 PM

Quote:
What's it been 1.5 to 2 plus years for Hammer and this all we get. I would have thought Amd would have done more. What are the waiting for?

Actually it's pretty impressive in my opinion even if it is just an upgraded K7.

For starters AMD is <i>finally</i> taking advantage of memory bandwidth. That's a huge step forward for them.

And then there's the actual 64-bitness, which really isn't needed yet but at least <i>might</i> shift PCs towards 64-bit. And at the very least it makes it a good low-cost server.

Really there are just only two disapointments as far as I see:
1) AMD actually bothered with a single-channel DDR version of A64. They could have just designed a non-ECC Opteron and ditched Athlon forever as far as I'm concerned.
2) AMD's dual-channel A64 FX (though it really should just be called the Opteron that it is, since there IS no difference other than name and perhaps price) is stuck using the slower ECC RAM. Once AMD get's dual-channel with <i>normal</i> RAM (or ultra-low-latency RAM more specifically) it'll perform even better.

Really I think that the Opteron at the very least proves that AMD isn't going down without a fight. They're still struggling to keep up with Intel. Now if they can just design a new chip from scratch using all of Opteron's good concepts they might really have a chance of impressing us.

<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 6:08:40 PM

About time with the bandwith. They should have dual channel. Thats a Big IF the can design that new opti chip you mentioned. That would be real nice. When? Do we have to wait two more years?
September 24, 2003 6:11:11 PM

Quote:
did he fall on a chain link fence or something?

I think that is the key right there. The current architecture is a little tired. I know that my athlon is good on games, but the low clock speed makes me want to get an intel processor whenever I start encoding video. If they can figure out a way to raise the clock speed on the current design, then fine, but if they can't maybe they should explore some ways of increasing performance in this application---> new chip design?

Scamtron doesn't like my sig...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2003 6:50:49 PM

> Most show the oposite, but to a smaller extent than THG
>(like 11-9 instead of 32-15). None seem to use as MANY
>tests as THG did.

If you are going to attribute a performance crown and a buying decission based upon the number of benchmarks, then a little common sense wouldn't hurt. For instance, you seriously find Q3A 640x480 results THREE times as important as a DX9 game result ? Or SPEC Viewperf FIVE times as important as lame or 3D studio ? That is nonsense.

The problem with THG (and many loyal followers on this board) is not the benchmarks as such, but the interpretation of them. Let me give you an alternate interpretation of the very same datapoints (benchmarks) with a focus on gaming. I'll stick to the A64 versus the P4C (as the P4EE isnt there yet, and the FX likely too expensive for most of us):

1)Q3A IMHO utterly irrelevant. No one buys a new cpu to get better framerates in Q3, but since its the only OpenGL game bench, -> P4C wins
2) Serious Sam ->A64
3) Wolfenstein ->P4C
4) Commance4 ->P4C
5) UT2003 ->A64
6) Splinter Cell->A64
7) Warcraft 3 ->P4C
8) X2 ->A64
9) Gunmetal ->A64
10)3Dmark 2001 ->A64
11)3Dmark2003 ->A64

Out of 11 game benchmarks, the A64 wins 7, and the A64 wins every DX9 bench except Aquamark (which is more a DX8+ bench anyway). SO, guess which cpu gets my recommendation for gaming ?

If you look at media encoding, the only obvious choice is the P4C, although 64 bit support might well change that as some early 64 bit benches indicate (ie DivX encode on Aces' hardware)

For 3D rendering & CAD both cpu's are pretty much even, and office performance is a total non issue no one cares about.

Pricewatch lists the P4C3.2 for $599, the Athlon 64 is $441.
So if you are a gamer without unlimited budget, the A64 seems to be your logical choice. 64 bit support is there for free. If you do a lot of media encoding, the P4C price premium over the A64 is worth it, and gaming performance is still respectable.

The FX is for people with too much money, and the P4EE a collector item for those with too much money and patience to boot.

Thats my analysis...

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
September 24, 2003 7:28:27 PM

hmm i think the 64 fx will dominate the market, even tho releasing it abit to early i think with not many 64bit apps, no standardized ram and premature boards...but isn't that what all the great ones have done...man remember win95? os/2 warp was alot better, but launched the wrong way. it's all about marketing and the rest will follow...if the 64 fx wins the race, and i think it will due to it early launch the rest(chipsets, app and memory...) will autimagically follow up
(don't kill the messenger)

Beat the heat with the USB-Powered Fan :wink:
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2003 7:38:18 PM

>hmm i think the 64 fx will dominate the market

Dominate ? LOL !! Get real, AMD states the A64 will outsell the FX by 40 to 1. FX may (or may not) dominate benchmarks, but no way its dominating anything else. Its a very low volume niche product (much like the P4EE). We are talking tens of thousands, not (tens of) millions like Athlon/durons s or P4/celerons

>even tho releasing it abit to early i think with not many
>64bit apps,

How do you expect software vendors to port if there are no chips in the market ? Of course there is still little AMD64 software out there, how long did it take to get MMX, SSE SSE2/P4 optimized apps ? Hardware first, software follows, always, and never the other way around. You cant expect AMD to wait until everyone ported to AMD64 before releasing the chip, can you ?

> and premature boards
Fx uses the same boards as the Opteron 1xx, which has been out for a while. Compared to the 1999 Athlon (K7) launch, boards and support are very mature.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
September 24, 2003 8:28:54 PM

Quote:
It seems like every review looks biased, no matter which brand wins.

In the end, there is far more to think about that which brand has the absolute top benchmark in some hardware lab in Munich. In reality you could build systems using an AMD or Intel processor with an ATI or Nvidia card and end up with a machine capable of playing any current game perfectly. So why is it always portrayed as a "war"? My guess is because it is because there are only two main players. Infineon isn't at war with Corsair because there is Kingston/Crucial/Mushkin etc. waiting in the wings. MSI isn't at war with ASUS becuase there is Gigabyte/Iwill/Abit will equally good products. But surely, just because there are only two main players it can still mean there are strengths and weaknesses to both products, just like there are strengths and weakness to MSI boards or Crucial RAM.

Ah well, I guess your calls for rational assessment of the facts will continue to fall on deaf ears Crashman. Yes, the P4 EE is certainly a spoiler for what is actually a nice product from AMD. In a way I feel a bit sorry for the guys at AMD who must be feeling pretty down about it. But then that's why Intel released it. Having said that, remember how crap the P4 was when it was released and how we all derided it. The future is bright, it's neither Intel's nor AMD's, it's ours. Build your system and enjoy.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/myanandtech.html?member=114979" target="_new">My PCs</A> :cool:
September 24, 2003 8:36:39 PM

Quote:
Yes, the P4 EE is certainly a spoiler for what is actually a nice product from AMD. In a way I feel a bit sorry for the guys at AMD who must be feeling pretty down about it.

I would have said to remember how AMD held an AMD64 love-in right outside of the very doors of IDF to spoil <i>that</i> show. Turnabout is fair play after all. ;)  If you can't play with the big dogs then stop pissing in their yard. :o  ...An' all that.

<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 8:46:14 PM

Re: WTF are you on, crack? You don't remember how Intel mistreated THG concerning their exposer of the PIII 1.13 Coppermine flaw? Or Tom's attack on the i820 Rambus chipset? Or Tom's general attack on Rambus? Or Tom's attack on inside deals between Intel and Rambus before their joining? Or the fact that Tom himself testified against Rambus in the memory makers lawsuits? Or Tom's attacks on the Socket 423 platform, or the low IPC of the P4 Willy?

So is Intel bribing THG? Personally I doubt it.

However this site has definitely changed over the years. From what I remember (and I have been using this site for many years) Things started really changing around the time that article was written about fanboys. This fanboy term is now common language used in review sites, forums all over the internet.

IMHO (yes this is merely a theory on my part) Tom sold out to investors or partners, I'd guess Tom still has a stake but the site is out to make money so its more commercialized. So as a company out to make more and more money (hard to due on the internet with all the competion) they must respect the large advertisers like Intel, Nvidia, Microsoft.. In the old days tom would slag Intel to no end and he would never do that today.

THG has to walk a fine line too many smart knowledgeable people read the reviews. These are not reviews about questionable opinions like which tastes better Coke or Pepsi but reviews about factual things and if they fudge the numbers this site will loose all credibility.

In a review today THG still does fairly objective reporting However, THG does not seem to reprimand THE BIG GUYS when they pull very questionable marketing stunts. Tom definitely would tear them a new one in the past. Case in point Nvidia and all the garbage they have pulled in the last year. I know THG was clear to point out the beta drivers were suspect and to be taken with a grain of salt. In the past tom would have torn Nvidia a new one for all the stunts they have pulled recently. and like I said THG is walking a fine line between knowledgeable readers and keeping the big advertisers happy or content.

So in regards to is Intel bribing THG? Is it possible?
Possible yes, likely no, but putting that overclocked P4 in that review was tacky to say the least.
September 24, 2003 9:44:49 PM

Quote:
So in regards to is Intel bribing THG? Is it possible?
Possible yes, likely no, but putting that overclocked P4 in that review was tacky to say the least.

Guess what, THG has just officially admitted that it was a mistake:
<i><font color=red>
Update Sept 24,2003: Unfortunately we have made a mistake in the original article: In addition to the official P4 EE 3.2GHz we had included benchmark scores of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz. These values were planned for a future THG article and were not intended to be included here. We would like to apologize especially to those readers who misinterpreted our charts. The two bars of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz have now been removed. However, this issue does not affect our conclusion as we have only compared the official P4 3.2GHz EE to all other test candidates in our original article. For your information: The press sample of the P4 Extreme provided by Intel does not have a multiplier lock and is already designed for higher clock speeds. </i></font color=red>





<i>/Copenhagen - Clockspeed will make the difference... in the end</i> :cool: - <A HREF="http://icq277242841.subnet.dk/_1046137.html" target="_new"> <b><font color=blue>My Rig </font color=blue></b> </A>
September 24, 2003 9:56:11 PM

They 'accidentally' added results from a non existant chip meant for a future article? Yeah, right.
Sounds very probable. Personally I think they didn't expect the backlash they got and now are trying to weasel their way out
September 24, 2003 10:45:47 PM

Quote:
That could not have been any more absurd. I suppose when the XP2600+ was paper launched, THG didn't use it later when it was never available, same as the XP2800+ huh?

Actually, your quite wrong. What you say is absurd. A paper launch is a paper launch, regardless of it being either AMD or Intel. If the scenario was reversed I would be be saying the same thing in support of Intel. I am not a fanboy crying foul by any means any one suggesting such really has no clue. If AMD paper launched processors in the past then the same applies to them. However, this is not a paper launch (for AMD), no one can argue it is. Intel zealots have to agree, that at this time the AMD64fx processor is the fastest processor you can buy.


Quote:
Gee, I suppose THG deserves slapping.

Yup, they do. the quality of the reviews have steadily gone downhill over the last two years.


It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
September 24, 2003 10:54:39 PM

the bars are still there in their review.
September 24, 2003 10:54:44 PM

Quote:
And at least Intel's rebranded Xeon runs on P4 mobos and doesn't require ECC RAM to run. (How many performance freaks do you know that use ECC?) So it's an actual desktop chip, even if it is a Xeon at heart.

AMD's rebranded Opteron however won't even touch a plain A64 mobo and needs the slower and more expensive ECC RAM just to run. So with AMD you end up with a complete and entire Opteron workstation, but with an Athlon label. Yeah. Great idea AMD.

Yeah ok run a williamette core processor on a northwood board, enough with the motherboard issue.

And now to address the ECC Ram. Big deal, as demand goes up price will come down. Most of the people that use thier computers to do more than just play games actually consider ECC to be a blessing not a curse. You want to run more than a gig of ram and not have ECC? Have fun! For those who find ECC unacceptable the 939 pin variant will not require it and will compete quite favorably with the p4. Furthermore, the requirement for Opteron and AthlonFX is registered memory, with ECC optional.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ncogneto on 09/24/03 07:07 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 24, 2003 11:11:26 PM

Quote:
Did they include it to show :
a)how well the EE scales up?


How does overclocking a hand-picked engineering sample show how well the EE scales up?

Let's face it, Intel sent out unlocked CPU's hoping some n00b reviewer would do exactly what THG did. The only way anything other than a P43.2EE is ever going to be available is if Prescott is severely delayed. Therefore having a 3.4 and 3.6 in the review did nothing but mislead.
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2003 11:19:56 PM

Yes, with crap articles on things like the VIA Epia platform (we won't test it in games because that's not what it was intended for), Shuttle cubes (it could hold 2 hard drives but they'd be so close together we can't recommend it), fanbus devices, etc., they're becomming more and more a marketing site than an enthusiast site.

<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 24, 2003 11:47:28 PM

My IE was pulling up the old images from yesterday. Refresh and they go away.
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2003 11:55:06 PM

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND! IT'S UNFAIR FOR ANY WEBSITE TO COMPARE A FACTORY MODIFIED XEON TO THE FX-51, HOW DARE YOU CALL IT AN OPTERON CLONE!!!

<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>
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2003 11:57:08 PM

None sucked, it's just that any website that doesn't claim AMD superiority sucks, regardless of the facts (that both perform similarly).

<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>
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2003 11:58:14 PM

I still think AMD stock will hit at least 20, and if I'm wrong it will be my first bad stock pick.

<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>
    • 1 / 6
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!