Article on p4ee & fx51

[darko21]

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,113255,00.asp

I know Intel is not a share holder with pcworld. But they own lots of cnet zdnet shares which is why an article like this would not be in one of those mags.

Makes one wonder just how THG came to their final opinion with the introduction of the fx51.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

 

[pitsi]

There is no way I would ever consider that "thing" a real review. Those articles at PC World are just ridiculous. I saw the specific one a few days ago and it's as ridiculous as the rest of their "reviews". Don't get me wrong, I would choose FX-51 over P4EE anytime, and THG's review doesn't change a thing. I've said it before and I'll say it again. THG is probably the ONLY hardware review website that gives D-E-T-A-I-L-E-D information about whatever components are used in its test rigs. Even the slightest change in memory timings for example can make quite a difference (because the differences between the two CPUs are already marginal), and I don't remember seeing any other website that says what memory timings they use on each machine. That's of course only an example and it goes on about every other component inside the systems tested.

Btw, here is THG's conclusion in that review you mentioned:

Thanks to its ideal configuration and use of the best components, the P4 3.2 in the Extreme Edition (actually a Xeon labeled 'P4') wins the performance crown. Its former gaming weakness against the Athlon 64 has been ironed out by the 2 MB L3 cache. The AMD Athlon 64 FX-51 is only <b>marginally slower</b>. <b><font color=red>Especially with 3D games, both the 1 MB L2 cache as well as the fast memory access (HyperTransport) help it <i>decisively beat</i> competitor Intel P4 3.2 (standard edition).</b></font color=red>

I don't see anything wrong with that! After all, P4 EE costs about 40% more than the FX-51.

 

[pitsi]

And btw, I am certain that we can expect better performance from FX-51 (939pin), while I am not sure that I can say the same for Prescott, when compared to P4 EE.

 

[zengeos]

I know Intel is not a share holder with pcworld. But they own lots of cnet zdnet shares which is why an article like this would not be in one of those mags.

Actually, PCMag has a dual workstation review that is reasonably enthusiastic about Opteron. The final paragraph of the article has this to say:

"In the meantime, the Opteron 248 looks to be a very robust workstation processor. It's not perfect, but no CPU is. Given what we've seen, it's likely to grace the desks of more engineers in the coming months."

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>

 

[ytoledano]

Ah man, noone made a clickable link? hmm, I really wanted to read it, but never mind...

Is 2^33634943-1 prime? (more than 10Mil digits @61.18%) I will know in 2 weeks when <A HREF="http://www.mersenne.org" target="_new">Prime95</A> finishes checking!

 

[darko21]

Re: I don't see anything wrong with that! After all, P4 EE costs about 40% more than the FX-51.

Himmmm I guess we see things differently huh. Guess what the text link states that links to the quote you got. (Summary: The P4 3.2 EE wins 32 times, the Athlon 64 FX-51 15 times - an uncertain 64-bit future for AMD)

The P4 3.2 in the Extreme Edition wins the performance crown. The AMD Athlon 64 FX-51 is only marginally slower.

Is this a joke?

Pretty much every other hardware review web site came to a different conclusion than you and the new & improved THG. It's a big deal cause your passing the performane crown. This is not a simple mistake. We have all wittnesed the past where Intel will do anything to keep that crown. P4ee was only designed to try and steal amd's thunder. Don't you agree?

We all know any reviewer can come to any conclusion they wish depending on the types of benchmarks they wish to concentrate on. THG might have been the only website review to expose memory timmings used, so what. what matters is the conclusion and (is it an unbiasd review). While I'm interested in knowing the memory timmings used I can get over it, if it's not listed. Who knows what the Ideal memory timming are for the fx51 anyway? so long as the CAS is 2 it probably won't make all that much of a difference.

Not even talking about the overclocked p4ee's that were thrown into that review (I know they pulled them later and appologised) The fact is it should have been about the (at the time available) fx51

Instead it was compared to the unavailable pretty much no one will ever see or own, limited, select oem only, p4ee, and to top it off THG comes to a different conclusion than the rest of the world.

The reason I posted the link was because it's the first paper print article I've seen on this topic. and I know Intel cannot influence the magazine in any clear way (like the knowlege that intel just might sell all our stock)

All PC magazine reviews can be loaded with hidden commercials rather than a real unbiasd review. I'm just dissapointed I now have to read THG with the same skeptisism.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

 

[pitsi]

Since the difference between the two CPUs is only marginal, there are many "little innocent" things that can turn the battle towards one or the other. As far as memory timings is concerned, how do I know that a review site is not using CAS 2.5 for the P4 EE? Nobody says nothing about memory timings (and believe me, they CAN affect performance)! Also, when using an Intel mobo for the P4 EE against an Asus mobo for the FX-51 is again not fair because Intel's motherboards are well known for their stability and not for their speed (Asus). Also, I've seen some review sites using mobos based on the 865PE chipset instead on the 875P which is again unfair.

I can continue but I guess you got my point. Believe me, I am not defending Intel here, nor would I ever consider buying a P4 EE. But that's the truth (at least that's the way I see it). I need to see all the facts in order to draw my own conclusions and I know that THG is maybe the only hardware review site that gives me the opportunity to do that. How can I believe ANY review if I don't know what hardware they used during their tests, no matter what they say in their conclusions! And at the same time, how can I doubt about the validity of the tests of THG when unlike others, all hardware details are there for me to read them?

 

[pitsi]

what matters is the conclusion

I never belonged to that group of people and I never will. It's my hard earned money and I want to have my own opinion when it comes to spending it.

 

[darko21]

RE: Since the difference between the two CPUs is only marginal, there are many "little innocent" things that can turn the battle towards one or the other.

I guess this is where we see differently. I see nothing innocent in denying amd the performance crown after all seems they earned that crown at least all the other review sites seem to think so. Passing the crown is a big deal.. . Do you think there was a conspirousy among all other review sites to hide the memmory timmings and make the p4ee perform worse using poor timmings?

Re: Nobody says nothing about memory timings (and believe me, they CAN affect performance)!

Agreed, but cas has the biggest efect by far..
Nobody really knows the ideal timmings for fx51 could be like nforce2 where tras 11 has best performance.

Not including CAS.... memory timmings other than CAS will have only a small effect on over all performance. But yes they can still affect performance. Especially if one was trying to deliberatly reduce performance which I doubt.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.