On multiple performance pages they incorrectly evaluated the results. Take this one for instance:
http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_64-50.html
They say "The P4 3.2 wins the CPU benchmark while the Athlon 64 FX-51 runs away with the memory test with 11599 points - an all-time record!". Uh excuse me, the P4EE had 14253, where did the 11599 come from? A HT system shines in memory tests because it hides memory latency, obviously its going to smoke a single context CPU (even 64-bit).
Also the rhetoric about Intel being infantile and what not really shows the biasedness here. The one thing I completely agree with is the subject heading. A P4EE works with software today at the same (or better) performance than an Athlon 64-bit will work with the software tomorrow.
There is a reason why Intel didn't go 64-bit with 100% 32-bit backwards compatibilty. The results show it clearly. I'm sorry to say it but I think AMD has dug their own grave.
http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_64-50.html
They say "The P4 3.2 wins the CPU benchmark while the Athlon 64 FX-51 runs away with the memory test with 11599 points - an all-time record!". Uh excuse me, the P4EE had 14253, where did the 11599 come from? A HT system shines in memory tests because it hides memory latency, obviously its going to smoke a single context CPU (even 64-bit).
Also the rhetoric about Intel being infantile and what not really shows the biasedness here. The one thing I completely agree with is the subject heading. A P4EE works with software today at the same (or better) performance than an Athlon 64-bit will work with the software tomorrow.
There is a reason why Intel didn't go 64-bit with 100% 32-bit backwards compatibilty. The results show it clearly. I'm sorry to say it but I think AMD has dug their own grave.