I say controversial, because for far from the first time THG puts up a review that doesn't line up with <b>any</b> other. Maybe the rest are all biased, I dunno. But if you want people to believe <b>you</b> over them, at least don't make page long mistakes.
If I address anything here as 'You', I mean THG, the reviewer of the 3400+ in particular. At no offence to the forum members here, which I'm sure are decent ppl.
I expect this thread to be deleted, as I've heard that THG doesn't appreciate having people attempt to show their readers that there are true unbiased reviews out there.
But at least correct this point on the 3400+ review before deleting this thread... as this level of slander makes me uneasy and quite frankly pissed off.
<A HREF="http://www.theforumisdown.com/uploadfiles/1203/amdroadmap.jpg" target="_new">http://www.theforumisdown.com/uploadfiles/1203/amdroadmap.jpg</A>
The link above is, as best as I can determine, the most recent leaked AMD roadmap. It <b>clearly</b> shows that up to the 3700+, the peak <b>maximum</b> thermal output is 89W. For the whole range up to 3700+. I believe you'll find that that includes the 3400+. Which you 'approximate' will draw 95W as the 3200+ has a published 89W maximum (it does, but so does the 3700+). Why does AMD not list the specs on the 3200+? Or the 3000+? Or the 3400+? Because no one <b>cares</b>. All mobo manufacturers need to know is if they can cope with the whole product line. They don't want to design a product that only takes in to account the 3200+ peaks. Same as HSF manufacturers, and everyone else.
Sorry for my rant, but this is just one comment on a huge list of reviews from THG that have severely pissed me off.
I wasn't going to read the review, I just flipped straight to the conclusion. Until I read this - "<b>A close look at all the benchmark results reveals that the new Athlon64 just barely earns the performance rating 3400+</b>". As I said, perhaps <b>every</b> other site out there is biased. Could be. Stranger things have happened.
But the quality of this site has gone down hill for a long time now. Even on non AMD/Intel stuff. For instance, don't even get me started on the Gotham 2 review that states that the game 'is about setting off speed radar guns', where you race around 'a series of bends followed by a long straight stretch, at the end of which you have to <b>decelerate</b> to <b>minimum speed</b> to pass the test.'
I'm sorry... but what is that? I'm sure that <b>anyone</b> else that has even played the game can sympathise there. They don't even <b>touch</b> on Live, which for many is the best thing there. If I dotpointed all the key things that they missed out in the review... why, you'd get a much better picture from reading that then from reading the review.
This is me picking on a <b>couple</b> of things in just 2 reviews. But there are many many many more reviews out there that annoy me, and many many many more people out there that are annoyed by them. And even more people that are misinformed by them, and possibly have their buying decisions affected by them. It makes me sick. Correct those reviews, and then delete this thread/ban me if you must.
If I address anything here as 'You', I mean THG, the reviewer of the 3400+ in particular. At no offence to the forum members here, which I'm sure are decent ppl.
I expect this thread to be deleted, as I've heard that THG doesn't appreciate having people attempt to show their readers that there are true unbiased reviews out there.
But at least correct this point on the 3400+ review before deleting this thread... as this level of slander makes me uneasy and quite frankly pissed off.
<A HREF="http://www.theforumisdown.com/uploadfiles/1203/amdroadmap.jpg" target="_new">http://www.theforumisdown.com/uploadfiles/1203/amdroadmap.jpg</A>
The link above is, as best as I can determine, the most recent leaked AMD roadmap. It <b>clearly</b> shows that up to the 3700+, the peak <b>maximum</b> thermal output is 89W. For the whole range up to 3700+. I believe you'll find that that includes the 3400+. Which you 'approximate' will draw 95W as the 3200+ has a published 89W maximum (it does, but so does the 3700+). Why does AMD not list the specs on the 3200+? Or the 3000+? Or the 3400+? Because no one <b>cares</b>. All mobo manufacturers need to know is if they can cope with the whole product line. They don't want to design a product that only takes in to account the 3200+ peaks. Same as HSF manufacturers, and everyone else.
Sorry for my rant, but this is just one comment on a huge list of reviews from THG that have severely pissed me off.
I wasn't going to read the review, I just flipped straight to the conclusion. Until I read this - "<b>A close look at all the benchmark results reveals that the new Athlon64 just barely earns the performance rating 3400+</b>". As I said, perhaps <b>every</b> other site out there is biased. Could be. Stranger things have happened.
But the quality of this site has gone down hill for a long time now. Even on non AMD/Intel stuff. For instance, don't even get me started on the Gotham 2 review that states that the game 'is about setting off speed radar guns', where you race around 'a series of bends followed by a long straight stretch, at the end of which you have to <b>decelerate</b> to <b>minimum speed</b> to pass the test.'
I'm sorry... but what is that? I'm sure that <b>anyone</b> else that has even played the game can sympathise there. They don't even <b>touch</b> on Live, which for many is the best thing there. If I dotpointed all the key things that they missed out in the review... why, you'd get a much better picture from reading that then from reading the review.
This is me picking on a <b>couple</b> of things in just 2 reviews. But there are many many many more reviews out there that annoy me, and many many many more people out there that are annoyed by them. And even more people that are misinformed by them, and possibly have their buying decisions affected by them. It makes me sick. Correct those reviews, and then delete this thread/ban me if you must.