I am really confused :S. i have read the article and watched the video on the Athlon FX-51 at 2.8GHz with the prommie alltho game results are good there is one oddity.
<A HREF="http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.de.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031020/index.html&langpair=de|en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&prev=/language_tools" target="_new">http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.de.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031020/index.html&langpair=de|en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&prev=/language_tools</A>
How come your results are so inconsistent. The guy is either plain stupid or is "Massaging" the results to make AMD look bad! He managed to o/c his FX-51 chip to 2.8Ghz and scored awesome..... 20k! lol, how come he still scores lower than some non-o/ced Athlon64?
Here is someone on the 3Dmark2001 orb with an A64 Bumped up to 2250mhz & 9800Pro at stock: <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7130637" target="_new">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7130637</A> thats 20992 so why oh why are your results low!
Here is a more "believeable" representation of an FX-51: <A HREF="http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000268" target="_new">http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000268</A>
So tell me how do you explain your blatent bullsh*t then? How does AMD feel that you are favouring intel?
Imo AMD should pull the plug on you silly fanboys! :@
Delete this post is np, it just proves your obviously in the wrong.
*shakes head in sheer disgust*
I won't take anything that comes from your site without a pinch of bullsh*t from now on. Nice one Toms!
My inclination would be to say that would be because he was using a 5900. You can't compare 2 systems with different graphics cards and get any meaningful representation of the data.
Shadus
Another one that misunderstand what is comparison...
The goal was not to get the best 3DMark Result. The goal here, is to show the frequency and performance scalability of the Athlon FX CORE.
And the article do this well! For the best 3DMark score, go to http://www.futuremark.com and check them there! There is a lot of big 3DMark scores there!
Have a good day!
--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
| Quote : How come your results are so inconsistent. The guy is either plain stupid or is "Massaging" the results to make AMD look bad! He managed to o/c his FX-51 chip to 2.8Ghz and scored awesome..... 20k! lol, how come he still scores lower than some non-o/ced Athlon64? |
You do know how to read a chart, correct? If you do, I'd like to know what charts you're looking at, because every chart I look at (with the exception of 2 or 3) shows the FX-51 @ 2.8GHz trouncing everything else. So what the hell are you getting so worked up about? I'd like to know exactly how this makes AMD look bad.
Did anyone else think this test made AMD look bad?
<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
Actually this article showed that the FX @ 2.8GHz is an excellent processor, and I highly doubt that Intel will be able to bring anything in 2004 that can outperform it. Of course the question is whether and when AMD will be able to scale this beast up to 2.8GHz. In fact, the performance of the real FX-57 (probably 2.8GHz = FX-57) will be even faster because it won't be necessary to use registerred DIMMS, so it will benefit from lower latency. So I really can't see how this article makes AMD look bad. Oh, and by the way .. who the hell cares about 3DMarks? I never even read synthetic benchmarks. Only performance in real-world games/apps matters, because that's where I will be using my system.
What a dork. I'm a smart and literate dude, but all I have to say about that post is, what a dork.
Women--can't live with them, can't have heterosexual same-species intercourse without them.
Do your homework.. on the chart the P4 3.2C scores 17115, on the ORB I can't seem to find a lot entries below 20.000 for that cpu and a radeon 9800 pro.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
now where did i put that prozac?
What is the difference in a childs painting, and a adult who chooses to paint like a child.
All you Tomboys are missing the point!
An A64 with a Rad9800Pro scores over 20k standard and in Toms comparisin a FX@2.8ghz scrapes in with just over 20k.....please. Granted its a different g-card but the difference isnt anywhere near that big.
Therefor there are two scenarios: -
1) Them Tomboys are jimming results to make AMD look less impressive than they are
OR
2) Them Tomboys can setup a benchamrk to save their lives.
Either way it proves, once again, that Toms Biasware can't be trusted!
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Bootaner on 10/23/03 06:26 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
Hey idiot! Get over the freakin 3DMark benchmarking software! Nobody cares about that. Did you even see the performance showed in the article in games? That chip rocked and that was the article's conclusion.
3dMark depends A LOT more on the graphics card than the processor.
The ATI 9800 series <b>is better than</b> the Nvidia 5900 series.
if that oc'd A64 had a 9800 it WOULD have beaten the other results you refer to.
---
<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>
That A64 that i was reffering to was running STANDARD along with a STANDARD rad9800Pro.
And there is no way rad98pro is so much better than a 5900u that u need an extra 800mhz on the cpu along with the fx's extra capabilities!
I figured the same thing as the original poster back when the first A64vP4EE reviews were out. It showed the 5900ultra 1000marks or more slower than a 9800pro by previous reviews same drivers etc. I posted about it and got hardly any response at all. But this review doesn't overclock the fsb like all those on furutemark to get to 2.6ghz or whatever so the score is more or less as it should be. So STOP MOANING lol.....
My system spec: Fast PC<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
"It's not the spoon that bends, it's only yourself."
| Quote : All you Tomboys are missing the point!
|
Hey dummy... if they used the nVidia card for the AMD CPUs and the ATi card for Intel CPUs, you'd have a point. The nVidia card was used for all tests and showed that the FX-51 scales perfectly. I'd still like to know how this makes AMD look bad.
Pull your head out of your ass and take a deep breath. Oxygen deprivation affects perception.
<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
| Quote : 3dMark depends A LOT more on the graphics card than the processor.
|
man, does "old hand" mean you're something like veteran poster here? sorry, but you're rather a noob in my honest opinion. who told ya that? car hi, lobby hi are only cpu and other tests are also prettty heavy on cpu/mem sub system.
No matter how you look at it, your 20k score with an FX at 14x200 is ridiculous. look at the review, it clearly states the tests were ran at 325 mhz gpu core while GF FX non-Ultra runs at 400mhz and Ultra at 450mhz. Is that a typo or your reviewer simply downclocked his vid card and was dumb enough to admit it? either way, it looks like he's a noob and shouldn't be allowed to touch the hardware.
You gotta be blind if you can't see his bias. Watch his silly "A64 vs. FX-51 vs. P4 EE" video where he intentionally broke a clip on AMD hsf and "forgot" to show us how hot P4 got after he pulled the hsf off it while doing 3dmark'03 run.
How about his photochopped P4 3.6Ghz? where is it tom? as far as i know there ain't no P4 at such speed til now?
btw, your last review was a joke too where you compared stock AMD chips to overclocked paper-tigers from Intel. man, you gotta open your eyes cos everyone is laughin at ya at almost every hardware forum
Another idiot. Either that or you're the same person making multiple accounts.
Anyway.
The point was to test the CPU, not the GPU. Get off your high horse. This review did NOT make AMD look bad. I don't know how much more plainly we can put it. Like I said before... oxygen deprivation alters your perception...
<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
Do you know what's interesting? That the only people so far in this forum that think like you are two new users, "strangers", like yourself. In fact this thread began from one of them! Anyway ...
It is obvious that you are missing the whole point. Although I shouldn't be even typing this now, you have really pissed me off with your last post because you don't know [-peep-] about what you are talking about. Reviews compare various components (in this case CPUs) and provide us with results. Those results, are meant to be compared only for components tested within that review. The fact that the FX (@ 2.8GHz) scored "only" 20713 3DMarks is not a problem because that number is still 21% higher than what the P4 3.2c scored. Nothing would be different if the FX had scored 35000 3DMarks and the P4 3.2c 29000 .. the difference would still be 21%. Results in a particular review are not meant to be compared with results from other reviews, because of different components used in each one. What if he used an under-clocked FX 5900 Ultra?
And regarding your last sentence, yes they had included results of an overclocked P4 EE in that review (which later on admitted that it was a mistake), but from the first place they didn't mention them or counted them towards their final conclusion.
I was the first one to critisize THG about that review, and I was even the first one that made a post about that in this forum but after checking all the reviews that are around, I have realised that THG is possibly the only website that states exactly what hardware it uses (including memory, that many other websites "accidentally" forget to mention) and tries to be as fair as possible.
So, to sum up. The point of that review was cleary to see how well the FX scales up. And their conclusion is that <b><i>The Athlon 64 FX (Opteron) architecture offers ideal scalability with respect to clock speed - much better than that of the Intel P4</i></b>. The point was NOT to look at the performance of the FX @ 2.8GHz. It won't be here for a long time and in fact when it will be here, it will perform even faster since it will be based on a newer core of the FX. So, get that into your thick head and go find something else to whine about.
ehhhh...faster in what respect? At small to decent sized amounts it is, I'll give you that. Once you get out of 2 DIMMS for non-ECC ram, you notice a major slowdown. Maybe it's just me, but if the highest performing processor can't use more than 1GB (no doubt the minimum if you plan to make a computer that will destroy all in every respect, which was the mission of the Opteron/FX) of RAM to the RAM's full speed, then it really isn't hitting the mark in terms of being the ultimate processor. Also, if the demand for ECC RAM goes up...prices will fall, this is essentially the first consumer processor (spare the workstation oriented MPs and Xeons) that needs it.
RDRAM = ENEMY
Exactly, that review wasnt to compete with the other futuremark.com scores for the top, but show what the processor could do in terms of raw performance (partially, and only for those with the cash to fork out 3200 dollars for the entire kit) but mainly performance compared to the normally clocked version and the scalability.
BTW, i cant wait for the next FX core and hope it comes out before octoberish next year for upgrade time for me (anybody have any info on the roadmap?)....and that still make it need ECC RAM...or if they make 1+GB DIMMS at DDR400 speeds.
RDRAM = ENEMY
>Do you know what's interesting? That the only people so far
>in this forum that think like you are two new users,
>"strangers"
First, if you'd stick your head out of your *rse a bit more often, and visit other places as well, you'd know who quaddamage is. He is certainly no stranger to the scene.
Second, I am blessed with an 'old hand' title (or something else by now, couldnt care less), and kinda think like "that".
Finally, a lot of "aliens" like myself or QD come from other forums from time to time to try and talk some sense into this one, and try to open your eyes. That's why I came back - I really couldnt let so much clueless BS go undisputed anymore, hence a few lengthy discussions with Eden, omid and others. Now, though I'm a patient man with time to burn, I fear even I will give up sooner or later, and let other "strangers" do the dismissing, while the Juins continue brabbeling incomprehensive pseudo technical off topic posts and Edens will continue spouting their clueless nonsense like a naked emperor; or rather, lieutenant of the real emperor (Omid). Or the Raystonn's enjoying their one eyed reign over this land of blinds (hey Raystonn, where are those 32 GB/s dual channel QDR RDRAM yellowstone chipsets we would all be using by now ?)
Really, this place often seems like stuck in some alternate space-time bend, and from time to time, people from outside this mirco-universe come here to let you know what is *really* happening out there.. usually doesnt last long though, might as well say goodbye to QD while you have the chance
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
OR:
3) That you're just too stupid to realize that this benchmark is so graphics card dependant that processor speed makes little difference.
So it's your bias, where's your website? I'd love to start picking out all the obvious mistakes there!
<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>
Lets all not forget these great little gems about THG and what a tight little ship they run:
http://www.vanshardware.com/article...THG_Slander.htm
http://www17.tomshardware.com/mainb...0211/index.html
The above article is humerous in every sense, it's so wrong on so many accounts, I could write a novel on it. This was right after a lot of the senior editors left a while back. Looks like they asked the janitor to write this one up because whoever did obviously doesn't know his peen from his ass.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01.../xp1900-08.html
Wow Blizzard and Lightwave in the same sentence? You might want to tell the folks over at Blizzard that they use Lightwave LOL! Blizzard is a 3DStudio Max house for those that don't know.
Tom's Hardwre had an article a while back where they claimed to have a 3.06ghz. engineering sample of the P4 aong with a photo.
Shortly after the story was posted, a couple of people noticed that some of the numbers on their picture of this "engineering sample" were codes from a 2ghz. P4. Many raised the question as to what was going on, one site confirmed with Intel that no such samples have been given to anyone.
A few days later, subtle changes were made to the article at Tom's hardware, removing references to "having in his posession" about the 3.067 and said he had one with an open multiplier and he overclocked it to 3.06ghz. and that the results were indicitive of what an actual 3.06 wuld run at when released.
A week later, Tom's disputed the charges of doctored photos and claimed he never said that he had one in his posession.
Tom's denial was a complete lie though as I read the original article and saw the claims with my own eyes.
http://www4.tomshardware.com/mothe [...] er-03.html
The infamous "AMD Roadmap" completey conjured up by THG, AMD had no idea what this was because well, it wasn't made by them.
http://translate.google.com/transl [...] uage_tools
Article showing THG falsifying graphics benchmarks.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5845
Backlash over the Athlon 3000 article posted on THG.
http://www.amdmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=243
Media blackout courtesy of you guessed it, THG.
Article on HardOCP in regards to amdb:
Posted by Kyle 12:37 PM (CDT)
THG to Sue AMDMB.com:
As mentioned earlier, this editorial posted at AMDMB, chronicles Ryan Shrout's experience at a rather large LAN party this weekend. Here in the USA, we understand it to be our right to openly speak about our experiences in life, but quite possibly others do not feel that way.
Omid Rahmat of Tom's Guides Publishing, a.k.a TomsHardware.com, verified in an email to me that he made the following statements in reply to a reader's email explaining that he would not visit THG any more due to their recent actions.
-----Original Message-----
From: Omid Rahmat [mailto
mid@removed.com]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 8:41 AM
To: Name Removed
Subject: RE: MML2
Sorry to hear that, but Amdmb.com fabricated a story, and we gave as good as we got. We'll let the lawyers handle it.
If you choose to believe the amdmb.com version, fine, but we're not going to just sit there and have someone lie about us.
Omid Rahmat
Tom's Guides Publishing
www.tomshardware.com
Then also in another email:
It's bull, and no rebuttal required. We'll take them to court instead. They might get the message that way.
Omid Rahmat
Tom's Guides Publishing
www.tomshardware.com
It seems as though that is exactly what they intend to do as Omid called Ryan Shrout this morning around 11:45AM CST and verbalized that Tom's Guide Publishing would be having their lawyers send Ryan a letter explaining that they would be suing them for libel. Ryan, being a "poor college student" working on his EE degree does not have the funds needed to defend an action of this sort, it is our opinion that this action is to force Ryan's hand and make him take down his page that chronicles the events.
I have committed to Ryan that I will personally help him with funding his legal council so he will not have to fold with the almighty dollar being the deciding factor. We have also put him in direct contact with our attorney we keep on retainer that specializes in Intellectual Property matters. I think Ryan is telling the truth and should not be stifled.
The fact of the matter is that Omid was not present at the event and does not know what happened first hand. I would guess that Omid might be getting his information from parties that are now concerned with keeping their jobs. Also worth mentioning is that Ryan has some recorded audio of THG and AMD representatives saying some very interesting things to him that would be terribly embarrassing, if not downright damaging, should they be released publicly.
We have tried to contact AMD about this, this morning, but have not been successful.
As of posting this, I have received another mail from Omid making the following statement:
We will deal with Mr. Shrout through the appropriate legal channels, and leave it at that.
And the end result of that whole thing:
THG Backs Down to AMDMB:
Omid of TomsHardwareGuide writes:
Oh, my, we have just received word from our lawyer that the Supreme Court has upheld the "22 year old college kid defense" and all "22 year old college kids" are immune from prosecution. My lawyer also advises me that "22 year old college kids" don't have much money, and he is still fighting my case against the "2 year old bed wetter."
Be that as it may, the MML2 fiasco is now at an end.
Kudos to Ryan of AMDMB.com for standing his ground in the face of impending legal adversity and exercising his 1st Amendment Right as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. Certainly it would have been easier to buckle under the legal pressure and simply remove the chronicle of his recent experiences with THG.
As for THG and their statement quoted above, I have to admit I am truly stunned by their remarks. Is this the "clear cut professional manner" they noted themselves as using yesterday?
And just for the record, Ryan Shrout is 21 years of age. So when you see him, buy the man a beer.
End Quote.
Happy reading!
Emmortal
So all this is about your basic belief that a poor college student can say anything he likes and get away with it? Dude, this is real life, where RIAA sues children for downloading music on a paid subscription service.
How would you handle it if people slandered you on a news site?
Are you and Bootaner one and the same?
So what you're telling me is that THG was wrong to defend themselves? Let me rape you then, by your standards you can't press charges. I have a nice broomstick here.
<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>
It wasn't slander, at least that's what was decided. So don't know where you are pulling that from. Sure everyone has a right to defend themselves against slander, when it IS slander. In this case it was not as stated by the Supreme Court. Thanks, have a nice day.
Emmortal
Let me put it this way: If you accused me of rape, I'd get prosecuted and go to prison. If you refused to allow the state to prosecute and then told people it was because I threatened to send my family after you, most people would believe it. I would not be able to find a job, my friends would begin ignoring me, and I'd have people slashing my tires when I drove to the store. Obviously when you lie about someone, it causes FINANCIAL harm to them, and that makes it slander.
<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>
First, my head is not stuck anywhere (Tbreak forums or something right?). And second, I don't get it. In which part of my last post do you disagree? (read it first!) I'm 100% AMD too but what you are trying to do or imply here is ridiculous.
most of my post wasnt directed at you specifically, just a rant on "strangers" and their perception here.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
I fully understand what slander is, and yes all that would be true if I accused you of rape, bad analogy but I'll ignore it.
Secondly, it was decided by the state Supreme Court that it was not slander and he did not lie. This guy didn't do any more damage than Omid and the rest of the gang here have done to themselves over the past year or so. It's widely discussed on many message boards, hell even non-tech related boards, that THG is not the place to go because of the repuation they've built for themselves as being an unreliable source of hardware review.
Emmortal
You sir are FUD packaged with BULL.
You haven't read one thing in favor of THG's defense on such issue yet you take the side of ignorants who had no facts.
Kyle in case you don't know, is a redneck bastard, Crash knows it, everyone should. He's had nothing but hypocritical statements as well as very one-sided opinions.
You truly are misinformed.
--
<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>
| Quote : Finally, a lot of "aliens" like myself or QD come from other forums from time to time to try and talk some sense into this one, and try to open your eyes. That's why I came back - I really couldnt let so much clueless BS go undisputed anymore, hence a few lengthy discussions with Eden, omid and others. Now, though I'm a patient man with time to burn, I fear even I will give up sooner or later, and let other "strangers" do the dismissing, while the Juins continue brabbeling incomprehensive pseudo technical off topic posts and Edens will continue spouting their clueless nonsense like a naked emperor; or rather, lieutenant of the real emperor (Omid). Or the Raystonn's enjoying their one eyed reign over this land of blinds (hey Raystonn, where are those 32 GB/s dual channel QDR RDRAM yellowstone chipsets we would all be using by now ?)
|
BB you are pathetic. So why not also call Slvr Phoenix a brabbler for supporting my RAM claims?
If anything, one can easily deduce how you try to appear righteous each time.
But I won't go on, you're not worth almost anyone's time here, seriously.
--
<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>
Pitsi I have to commend you for being so open-minded and understanding THG's POV. I have great respect for the fact you did go far looking until you knew that while each site has different results, it all depends on how each proceded. I honestly can't see who can continue accusing THG of Intel bias.
"OOOh, AMD's HSF got broken in the video, waaaaaa"
"OH NO! THG told all the media to back out because THEY want the story on the LAN party! But wait, what's Sudhian doing there?!"
Goddamn it people, it's truly shameful to see such society.
--
<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>
| Quote : Now, though I'm a patient man with time to burn, I fear even I will give up sooner or later, and let other "strangers" do the dismissing, while the Juins continue brabbeling incomprehensive pseudo technical off topic posts |
So you want to persecute someone based on the fact English isn't their native language? I'll admit I have trouble reading some of his posts, but you don't see me insulting him over it, do you?
You ignorant [-peep-].
| Quote : First, if you'd stick your head out of your *rse a bit more often, and visit other places as well, you'd know who quaddamage is. He is certainly no stranger to the scene. |
I don't give a [-peep-] WHO he is. He came here spouting how some insignificant 3Dmark01 benchmark somehow makes AMD look bad when in fact THE EXACT OPPOSITE WAS PROVEN. Tom's showed how the Athlon64 FX scales perfectly... it was even stated in the review... so anything else you want to point fingers at is BS. Learn to read; it will help you understand the point of the review. The AMD Athlon64 FX scales perfectly. How the [-peep-] this 'makes AMD look bad' I'll never know.
You're the one that needs their head pulled out of their ass. I'll say it again... oxygen deprivation affects perception.
<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
So I'm not the only one who thinks so here!
--
<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>
Eden, may I suggest you read the actual facts of the case before you accuse other people of being ignorant. Clearly, from your statements here, you yourself haven't read any of it, at least you don't seem to have comprehended anything if you did.
cos maybe he doesn't want to? Care to comment on other fiasco's sir? let's start from a photochopped 3.067ghz P4 or whatever the speed you "clocked" it at? or maybe remember my Athlon64 scoring 20k in 3DMark2001 at default clocks and guess who was the first to call me names and accussed me of score faking? But then i even shot a video for idiots like you, the whole run + video settings. Strangely no one from THG saw the vid and apologised or something, you know like "yeah it wasn't fake, sorry dude" On the other hand, i can accuse you of cheating wherever i want and what you gonna do about it? shoot a video? That'll be lil harder than photoshop, i guess.
Sorry, maybe you're not cheaters but simply too dumb for this job. There's a thread over FutureMark for you to check out in case you get bored here.
You've still failed to show me how this test made AMD look bad. You keep avoiding the main point and trying to deflect with a pile of other crap. Once you can back up your claim that this last test made AMD look bad... I'll give you all the kudos you seem to be searching for.
Until then... remove head from ass.
<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
I've read pretty much what was involved. Ryan is a liar, Kyle came in because he hates THG and wanted to make some stirring on Omid. Further on there WERE MEDIAS COVERING it other than THG. The obvious nature of that should be enough to shut people up, but yet somehow we got people actually believing a hardware guide site like THG would tell the media to back out.
It is beyond me if you believe they actually did that.
--
<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>
>So you want to persecute someone based on the fact English
>isn't their native language?
No, English isnt my native language either (Dutch and French are),so I can sympathize with someone not being a native speaker and sometimes having difficulty getting a point accross.. I know what that is like.. but then, I don't post a gazillion posts on German forums when my grasp of the language only allows me to understand a bit.
>He came here spouting how some insignificant 3Dmark01
>benchmark somehow makes AMD look bad when in fact THE EXACT
>OPPOSITE WAS PROVEN
His point was that Toms 3Dmark scores where suspiciously low. I agree on that point, even though I don't seek any conspiracy complot behind it (for once), however, I did defend QD for being attacked as a "stranger" while afaik, if anyone knows anything about benchmarking 3Dmark, its him.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
>If anything, one can easily deduce how you try to appear
>righteous each time.
Righteous may not be the word, but I can understand you get irritated that unlike yourself, I usually get my facts straight.
>So why not also call Slvr Phoenix a brabbler for supporting
>my RAM claims?
As far as I can remember, he only supported your belief that >2 GB will not be a a necessity for the "large majority" any time soon. Depending on how you define one and another, thats a perfectly valid claim; most of the discussion was semantics. However, I don't remember Slvr posting a lot off outright factually incorrect statements, and basing his opinion on that.
>But I won't go on, you're not worth almost anyone's time
>here, seriously.
Ff no one learned anything from my posts, well than I am probably wasting my own time much more than anyone elses. Being humble and all, I dare say I have contributed quite a lot more hard facts and insights than yourself with your endless "I respect you if you respect me / I don't have clue but the K8's performance scaling is surely due to cc:NUMA / etc" posts. Who's time is such crap worth? My style may be less friendly, or even downright arrogant, but I that's only cause I don't give a rats *ss about being popular over here.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
You are entitled to your own naive opinions BB, which I have to respect nonetheless.
--
<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>
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 10/24/03 09:32 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
| Quote : Ff no one learned anything from my posts, well than I am probably wasting my own time much more than anyone elses. Being humble and all, I dare say I have contributed quite a lot more hard facts and insights than yourself with your endless "I respect you if you respect me / I don't have clue but the K8's performance scaling is surely due to cc:NUMA / etc" posts. Who's time is such crap worth? My style may be less friendly, or even downright arrogant, but I that's only cause I don't give a rats *ss about being popular over here. |
Interesting read this thread is. I will admit I have to disagree with the original post myself. It doesn't however make the accusations of Q and Em any more or less wrong, perhaps just out of place. ( this whole thread might have been better placed after the a64 was compared to the P4EE THAT STILL DOES'NT EXIST)
On a final note, those people that think post count has anything to do with actual knowledge of what they are talking about really need to get a grip.
It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
| Quote : On a final note, those people that think post count has anything to do with actual knowledge of what they are talking about really need to get a grip.
|
I agree, but the inverse is also as pertinent: Those who come here out of nowhere insulting or bossing around as if they know they're better, well, need to get a grip.
--
<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>
This is like competing in the special olympics here.
<b>"You haven't proven anything that once 64-bit support comes out, it will perform even better." -EDEN</b>
| Quote : I agree, but the inverse is also as pertinent: Those who come here out of nowhere insulting or bossing around as if they know they're better, well, need to get a grip. |
Do you frequent any other boards on other websites? If you do, out of curiosity, which ones? How would you say the general overall aptitude of the posters at these other sites (on average) compares with that of THG?
In this thread several good points were raised by "strangers". I do feel they were rather out of place in this thread, as I do not in this case see any conspiracy by THG to make the A64 look bad (in this article). Actually, when I first read it, to me it came off as a "make up" article after that horrible excuse of literature between the A64 and the P4EE. It does draw in to question the methology used by THG and the competency of its hardware evals.
THG is almost a daily publication. Much more so than other hardware review sites. Lately it has seemed that quantity is much more important than quality. While it is nice having something new to read about everyday, I will admit, sometimes it feels these articles are rushed to press much too soon, without enough subjective data to backup their claims.
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 10/24/03 10:30 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
"Do you frequent any other boards on other websites?"
Funny you should say that because the strangers in question are actually well known AMD/A64 overclockers. If anyone can spot fudge they can.
<b>"You haven't proven anything that once 64-bit support comes out, it will perform even better." -EDEN</b>
So Fugger, what are you waiting for, prove me and imgod2u where the 64-bit "optimizations" in G5s running normal memory amounts can actually benefit compared to AMD64 using 8 more registers.
It's fine and dandy to mock my statements, but you really don't have proof, making you rather weak in your point.
--
<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>
| Quote : Do you frequent any other boards on other websites? If you do, out of curiosity, which ones? How would you say the general overall aptitude of the posters at these other sites (on average) compares with that of THG?
|
I wouldn't know, I used to frequent 2 gaming boards, a long time ago.
THGC is my only real forum I've ever stayed on for over 2 years, and I'm enjoying it every day. I think THGC does stand out. Just try to live in the OTHERS forum, you'll feel like there was never such a great community found in an off-topic forum. You will always have detractors though. Gotta accept it.
EDIT: I see you were talking more about APTitude. I'd say we have a lot of knowledgeable people here. Granted, this isn't the most enthusiastic forum, but it does bring some interesting people. Slvr_Phoenix for example, or imgod2u who always is picky but adds some good in-depth info. So while we don't get Beyond3D's people, it's still a good community, and a dear one in the OTHERS forum.
| Quote : THG is almost a daily publication. Much more so than other hardware review sites. Lately it has seemed that quantity is much more important than quality. While it is nice having something new to read about everyday, I will admit, sometimes it feels these articles are rushed to press much too soon, without enough subjective data to backup their claims. |
Omid's ranted on how a large population puts this pressure. He pointed out the annoyance of that "Race to click first to submit your article", that sites seem to do. On the A64 launch, that was what happened. At the minute the exact time came up (forgot which), bam, every site posted it. It's stupid IMO. I would forgive THG if they were hours late. If they can fix errors in that time, it's more than excusable. But as long as you have to cater to some ignorants pressuring them and being judging on every thing they do, you screw up more often.
If they could POLL the readers and ask what they feel on article submittal times and if they don't mind longer posting times, it'd be something I'd take part of.
Also remember that THGC has a LOT of categories, and CPUs don't make the frequent posted part at all. Almost every saturday game reviews come out, and you get weekly new wireless hardware reviews.
So it's easy to say you get articles almost each day, but it's also easy to say, not one writer of them works for two categories. Which is true? I wouldn't know, but I know that a lot of categories and tons of writers = a lot more posting.
--
<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>
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 10/25/03 00:05 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
If you're trying to be popular on website forums it means your gay.
I'm wee todd ed.
Yes, my PSA could have been placed in a better post, or hell, a post of it's own for that matter. I just don't like to see such one sided arguments against people who speak up against something. There are good and bad things about every hardware site out there, it just seems to me from reading other places, and not even hardware related sites, that THG comes up in a negative light more often than not.
I've even had several guys who know very little about hardware in my studio tell me that they've heard THG not to be a good site when I brought up hardware. But to each his own. Take care,
Emmortal
| Quote : Funny you should say that because the strangers in question are actually well known AMD/A64 overclockers. If anyone can spot fudge they can. |
But I did not try to discredit anything they said. Merly questioned why they choose to place it in this thread. I actually agree with them on most points. It seems to me that most of the most knowledgable posters on THG forumns left in droves a while ago. Some of the stuff I read here just makes me shake my head. There sould be some sort of PC IQ test one should need to take before offereing advice to those who truly need it.
It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
There are 644 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

