Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Research before putting up controversial reviews!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 6, 2004 11:50:38 AM

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/amdroadm..." target="_new">http://www.theforumisdown.com/uploadfiles/1203/amdroadm...;/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.
January 6, 2004 12:06:16 PM

You are absolutely richt MaNia !
But the problem is, the intel lovers here do think Tom is telling the truth ! are they idiots ? maybe, i rather call it ignorence....

Do not expect to get banned, because Tom does not interest what is gooing on on this forum, there a no moderators, and nobody comes here for a serious debate...

What i found the best review of Tom as far was the fact that the Athlon64 FX was the fastest in every review in the world, accept, yes you know it already, accept this site :o )
Always in for a good joke,
The problem i think is, the intel lovers do think Tom is telling the truth, as long as they cant see : hey Tom is lying here they will believe everything Tom is saying...
January 6, 2004 12:08:37 PM

I would say most people would take THG's review with a pinch of salt, but then again would you trust a review from AMDZone to be unbiased also.

The results do vary from a lot of other "regarded" web sites, but all it takes is a different Driver/Motherboard/Graphix card etc...to make different conclusions from a cpu.

The review does seem to be out of line with other sites, but as a stated above, this could be because of those issues.
January 6, 2004 12:19:02 PM

Actually I was going to comment on that AMDzone wouldn't be the best to trust either. And as such, I didn't really comment on it... I actually used to be a THG boy. Until I discovered that company's like AMDZone surprisingly line up a lot more nicely with Anand, Xbit, and pretty much every other reviewer that I do now trust then THG ever did...

I dunno, I guess it's mainly under the strain of making it a daily publication. They just put out some really off reviews... a shame if you ask me. They never should have taken up the games etc either. KISS principle, keep it simple stupid.
January 6, 2004 12:42:06 PM

THG's reviews are misguided, I agree. However, the 3400+ isn't for all people. I do more video editting and audio work (as well as a lot of Photoshop work, but there's no benchmarks for P4 vs. A64) than gaming, so it would make sense that I would buy a P4C or Scotty (when released). It seems that THG has favored video editting and audio work in their basis for decision, which is informationally beneficial to me. However, THG does need to emphasize gaming more, IMO for two reasons: 1) get people like you to stop complaining and; 2) show how good the A64s really are at what they were designed to do.

As for the gaming reviews, I read one (Halo) and haven't read one since--they're pointless.

If you're trying to get banned or deleted, you won't. Only offensive and racist comments get banned here (usually).

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
January 6, 2004 12:44:53 PM

as i said elsewhere ;

why did THG use DDR400 for the athlons , yet use DDR433 , @ 400 with lower timings for the P4`s?

Why is THG using a non patched version of 3dmark03 - with using verion 3.30 of 3dmark , its not a valid version anymore - therefore the 3dmark results are not valid.

for the record THG should be using version 3.40 and the det 52.16 drivers for the benchmark ; if not then its not to be consider `legitimate`.

Aquamark3 ; why use totally non standard settings? why not use default - so other readers can compare there own pc`s - and see they `dream machines` and wants one?

IMO , something needs to be done to get parity in this review.



<A HREF="http://www.3dfx-interactive.com/voodoo5-6000/picture6.j..." target="_new">My 3dfx Voodoo5 6000</A>
January 6, 2004 12:52:24 PM

So let me get this straight you find the review biased so now you are bad mouthing THG. Then you said you don’t agree with the wording of the reviews or statements within them.

So why would you honestly think we THG forum members would really care if your opinion of the site and the reviews are poorly done. Just because the reviewers (NOT TOM PAPST) said the 3400+ barely earned the title 3400+. Because when I looked at the benchmarks all I saw was a new chip that could barely squeeze by the 3200+ in most tests.

So with that in mind it appears the statement is true and you are being overly zealous over a product that you will undoubtedly never be able to purchase anytime soon.

So then I am forced to conclude that you are a troll and tried to come off sophisticated and organized with your thoughts to appear to be a reader that didn’t like what he read because of "slanderous" statements made by the THG reviewers. Which quite frankly isn’t even possible since the CPU doesn’t have any lawyers to fight back on the "A close look at all the benchmark results reveals that the new Athlon64 just barely earns the performance rating 3400+" statement.

This quite frankly annoys me since you have now fostered a 17min waste of time and typing energies for me to say my piece in regards to your very unusual and pointless post.

I’ve said it before and Ill say it again you don’t like what the THG reviewers are doing don’t read it, well if you can actually read that is...

-taitertot

I carry the legacy of one of your fallen; let us remember him fondly for he is always watching.
January 6, 2004 1:01:09 PM

It's THG's website, they can do whatever they want.

Anyway, I guess their drive image isn't up to date (explanation for the fact they aren't using 53.03 or 3Dmrk2k3 340).

As for using DDR433 with lowered timings @ 200MHz vs. the A64 with DDR400, it's just part of their Intel bias (especially when the A64's performance is more influenced by timings).

3Dmrk2k3 should still be valid, it's not like they are testing ATi vs. nVidia, it's AMD vs. Intel--just processors.

Anyway, don't discredit THG completely, they put emphasis where it concerns some people most (i.e., not games).

I wonder if Intel were better at games while AMD was better at workstation use, would AMD or Intel win (i.e., is it really a bias for Intel or a bias for video editting and audio work?)??

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
January 6, 2004 1:08:12 PM

well , yes it is there own website , so they can do what they want , the way they want to do it - and im not actually accusing them of Intel bias.

about 3dmark - true , but if you read the `guidelines` published by futuremark , they explicitly state what gfx drivers and which build of the programme would be considered `legit` - and IMO , this not only applies to GFX cards - but to other components as well.

we can only wait and see how much of an improvement winxp-64 will have when it arrives (for the A64`s and the intel equivilent).

oh - about the heat issue , if you look at the roadmap - the total heat output for the entire 0.13 micron a64 range is 89 watts , and thats up to and including the 3700+ , so maybe another look should be made at temp claims?

its also the same with all the spurious figures being thrown about for the scotty chips and there output.

<A HREF="http://www.3dfx-interactive.com/voodoo5-6000/picture6.j..." target="_new">My 3dfx Voodoo5 6000</A>
January 6, 2004 1:11:28 PM

I believe Tom's Hardware Guide has the best reviews unbiased around the net. They offer a complete suite of testing very comprehensive and complete. I always come here to get reviews on latest Processors and I find THG to be concise and accurate with Conclusions. You won't find more information and in depth review on hardware anywhere else.
January 6, 2004 3:11:48 PM

*yawn*

Eh? Oh sorry, feel asleep at your nitpicking.

Summary in three words: Blah blah blah.

At least at toms you can see the descrepancies in the reviews, they let you know versions, timings, and settings. Unlike most other review sites. Generally toms is fairly unbiased and since I've been here I've heard them called intel biased (most recently), amd biased, nvidia biased, ati biased, I figure next they'll be matrox biased or xgi biased.

So again, to your post I say: *yawn*

Piss off trolly.

Edit: Fact is, toms is large enough to have a good following of all kinds of fanboys... intel, amd, nvidia, ati, xgi, matrox, dogsh!t, or whatever. Every review ends up pissing off at least one group of fanboys.

Sorry sunshine, yer not a beautiful and unique snowflake.

<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/shadus.html" target="_new">Shadus</A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by shadus on 01/06/04 12:14 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 6, 2004 3:22:47 PM

So what you're saying is that THG should read all other reviews put out by other websites before writing their own?

Interesting.

Let's not review it ourselves, let's just read what everyone else is saying and base our reviews off that! Amazing concept! This way, we'll please all the AMD zealots, and they won't dare accuse us of being Intel biased anymore! WOOOOOOT!

(Of course there will be the problem of Intel zealots claiming we're AMD biased, but that's relatively minor. Everyone knows that AMD zealots are more important than Intel zealots.)

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
January 6, 2004 3:33:22 PM

The problem is that THG made a couple of pretty severe errors.

1)Why dont use the same timings on memory in tests, this is afterall a CPU test so all common sense must say that all other variables should be the same including memory timings. Let alone using diffrent memory sticks. (DDR400 vs. DDR433)

2)Power figures
January 6, 2004 4:08:22 PM

Have you ever been to any other review site?? THG has some sort of bias, it's obvious. Whether that is an Intel bias (likely) or a video editting/audio work bias (less likely, still possible), is questionable.

XBit and Anand are the most reliable (for overall), IMO.

Of course, THG emphasizes what I care most about (at least in CPUs)...so I use it as my main reference.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
January 6, 2004 4:24:14 PM

i think Anandtech is pretty biased imo. all the test favor AMD systems like office apps and unreal tournament 2003, while they cripple Intel systems with questionable inaccurate results. there is even a link to AMD forum from Anandtech.
January 6, 2004 4:44:10 PM

add on a further note. I like THG is because they don't censor or conceal anything. Not like Futuremark , which bans people or threads that make their products look bad. at least THG doesn't do that and i respect that despite what people are saying. and the whole fiasco with approved drivers for 3dmark03 is more biased and unfounded against Nvidia. Futuremark's patch disables Nvidia's GPU compiler which is designed to optimize software for it's code path.
January 6, 2004 4:49:15 PM

your posting even more rubbish now....

Nvidia have stated themselves that the patch doesn`t disable anything - there still using the gpu compiler

go look for the press release on nvidia.com

<A HREF="http://www.3dfx-interactive.com/voodoo5-6000/picture6.j..." target="_new">My 3dfx Voodoo5 6000</A>
January 6, 2004 4:54:55 PM

i disagree, Futuremark made that claimed first. Then Nvidia agreed later. i believe that the 3dmark03 patch did something to Nvidia's compiler forcing them to release new Force ware 53.03 drives to fix it. Action speaks louder than words.
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2004 9:28:22 PM

Quote:
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.

You're an idiot and a troll. THG accepts all criticism, even that by people like you and p00p, er, Coop or whatever his name is.

<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
January 6, 2004 9:35:35 PM

Hey, aren't you one of the trolls that raised hell when THG published benchmarks of the overclocked EE with the standard benchmarks and FX-51? Hmm, I don't see you complaining about the 3400+ being overclocked in this benchmark. I bet you don't even consider yourself biased!

<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>
January 7, 2004 1:19:21 AM

^^
to the poster above me. all i see is the inability you have to answer why THG is disagreeing with every other 3400+ review on the 'net, and why its using diff. RAM timings. maybe some admin will comment, but tbh would you trust any reviewer so completely incapable of doing a fair tests comment? stop trying to drag this off topic into a flame. personal abuse is not on, and its usually a sign you are frustrated because someone is right, or doesnt understand you. if you were making any point whatsoever, the second option may be true, but you're just being insulting.

i am annoyed that a user has been called a "troll" for finding some major flaws in the review, if you dont agree with RAM timings and A64 being a major issue, you have no right to insult ANYBODY when it comes to reviews. do some research first. best to be an accurate troll in my opinion, if it offends people at least, hopefully, it triggers some neurons.

all THG are doing by overclocking the 3400+ is showing that in their eyes its still slower then the 3.2C, and that it doesnt overclock well. however, firstly it does. secondly, it doesnt need to, as on air (or any cooling method) its capable of much higher performance level (except on MPEG coding, which is apparently what THG think their users use all the time) then anything except a P4EE, and the FX is faster overall (and cooler) then that.

thats just being pedantic tbh - in light of all the other major errors (its only nitpicking if you dont actually understand the major difference in performance the RAM timings had, that they are using a non valid version of 3dmark, beta BIOS's, old BIOS's in the A64 tests, and invalid Aquamark versions, and incorrect A64 prices - they dropped before this review was posted btw) in this review, i think we can safely put that comment on the back burner.
THG are also incorrect in speculating on the AMD heat output of the 3400+. they should learn to read a roadmap and technical details chart. the maximum heat output in W of the entire 64bit lineup 2.4GHz and below doesnt exceed 89W, so what are THG making up spurious figures for? im annoyed, as they know better.

---
intel fans, did you notice the 5GHz P4 review? tried multiplying the FSB by the multiplier? it doesnt add up.
also, the pic is photoshopped ;)  funny the only artifacts are near the (incorrect) clock speed.

also, for a 3.2C, its funny for it to have an engineering sample unlocked multiplier. go see. if the picture is pulled and replaced (its already happened once :o  ) i bet theres hundreds of users here and everywhere who will be happy to send you a copy.
THG lied once again there, and thats once too many for me. why is everything else truthful, if they dont either have the skills, or the inclination to test properly?
you're not idiots or sheep, go check up and ask yourself why they do this. get a calculator, and do it now. use photoshop and zoom in on the WCPUID pic, and see the only artifacts are around the clock speed. i could do better mental arithmetic, and editing in MSpaint.
---


these are the only two reviews i saw here recently, and they are both glaringly flawed. unprofessional, unscientific definately. biased or just stupid? im not sure. but they're definately underestimating their user base (hopefully, tho im not seeing much proof of that here).

all i want to say has been said already @ futuremark - bear in mind, its not an AMD/ Intel site, which is good. a lot of errors have been made in Intel's (sorry, Toms) reviews recently - see some of the comments here: http://discuss.futuremark.com/forum/showflat.pl?Cat=&Bo...

im not insulting the users. im insulting the review, and indirectly the reviewers. and if people get the wrong impression, they need to re read the review and question it - better yet, look for others.

this site, and this unmoderated forum are a total joke. not only does the review disagree with every other site on the net, and the stock scores people are getting with 3200+'s, but they dont even attempt to explain or hide their glaring inadequacies as reviewers. i feel sorry for the intelligent posters here, who have to get so defensive to defend a site not worth saving.
its not even a new, inexperienced site. if anything, its got worse over time. i blame the office location.

oh and Kanavit. looks like you got banned again @ futuremark under your other username. funny you mention bias, as thats why you were banned.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by blackstarFM on 01/06/04 11:24 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 7, 2004 1:53:11 AM

Wow that was one big post.

Nice work.

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.
January 7, 2004 1:59:37 AM

yep, i looked at the recent THG reviews with mounting horror - its scary how misleading the 3400+ review would be to the general public, but i suppose with no agency to check up on reviewers, Tom's will keep on doing it.

i in no way connect THG to its forum users btw. they voted the FX51 top CPU if i remember correctly, so have some accurate views of the CPU situation IMHO.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by blackstarFM on 01/06/04 11:11 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 7, 2004 2:13:08 AM

Ya there is little that can be done about it. I'd say a lot of PC Mags are worse then THG is now. It's a complicated industry none of the big advertisors want to spend money advertising in a medium that does not review them in a faverable light.

Whats sad is how good this site once was and how unreliable it has become. I mean if their testing for Intel Nvidia, always comes to a different conclusion then the rest of the internet hardware review sites, How could you trust a review on monitors or anything.

If THG don't get back on track they will sonner or later fail. People want the truth not half truths.

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.
January 7, 2004 2:35:25 AM

Nah, I have to big a temper with fanboys and trolls. I can fly of the handle when I get frustrated with fanboz and the like.

I'm sure I'd be lousy at it.

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.
January 7, 2004 2:44:52 AM

Futuremark ha-ha oh man there are even more clueless morons over there. Last I saw those fools believed that the current line of Intel and AMD CPUs are executing 3-7 instructions per clock, OC'n is the most l337 thing a human can do, even though its just a trial and error system and most of the hardcore OC'ers on Futurecraps benchmarks suits are professional companies targeting e-penis punks for sales for their deep undercutting online hardware site.

But what can I say Futuremark is a dieing venture now, even the hardware companies are beginning to just say screw em. Sloppy code, zero optimizations, overdone unrealistic bench environments, oh and the constant need to have insane amounts of eye candy just to show that PS code can do some neat things with your cards available texture passes. It’s a joke and so are the e-penis users that heavily rely on their score as a sort of social standing.

But it still don’t change that THG listens to its readers and is constantly adding/changing/ and redefining their benchmarks and the ways they do them. You got a problem with the reviews contact the reviewers, and as long as you aren’t saying that you think they are incompetent morons and you’ll stab them in the face because you’re messing with AMD then I’m pretty sure they will listen to what you have to say.

-taitertot

I carry the legacy of one of your fallen; let us remember him fondly for he is always watching.
January 7, 2004 2:51:17 AM

Your futuremark bans people for their opinions.
I use THG forums to get honest OPINIONS from people and for people to come on these forums to disgrace people just for using the forums is pathetic. I don't share the views of THG in general.. but i can say i like the people on these forums, and they are helpful in many ways.

Any monkey can F/uck up benchmark results.. and for anyone to go to an AMD site and say they aren't biased is ignorant. I'm using an Intel system now.. i have a nice AMD oc'ing rig coming. Now mind you this can be related to Britney Spears, here albums sell number one.. the media loves her.. in fact everywhere you look everyone loves her.
But, I don't care what the media says.. i know what I like.
I don't like her and other than having sex with her i would never want anything to do with her.

p4 2.8 533fsb
intel mobo
1gb rdram pc 800
radeon9800 pro
120gb seagate s-ata
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2004 3:03:41 AM

1) Like I said, maybe some other sites found a better platform or RAM solution. I've looked at other reviews, some say A64-3400+ barely beats 3.2C.

2) You call an editor a lier when he makes a typo, even if you know it was a typo and not intentional, it just proves you're an arse

3) That's not what AMD fans said when they found overclocked P4's in the FX51 comparison. So now you're saying that when THG overclocks the P4 against stock AMD's, it's to skew the charts, but when they overclock AMD's against stock P4's, it's to show they suck stock? Who's biased 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>
January 7, 2004 3:17:49 AM

I don't really care what THG reviews have to say anymore. Like many people here pointed out, THG reviews are pretty crap quality these days, either way you go. The photochopped ES P4 was kind of the breaking point.

I don't bother with THG reviews anymore. I just happily point out that going to THG for any sort of review is like going to Barefeats for a Mac review, or going to TheInq for news. You have to take whatever you read with a huge bag of salt.

<i><Lionel Hutz> I'll be defending...The SCO Group!!!??? Even if I lose, I'll be famous!</i>
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2004 3:55:59 AM

So when you run out of someone legit complaints, you turn to total lies?

I looked very carefully at that picture, no evidence of modification that I can see even at 16x resolution, you're making this one up. But just in case you don't believe me, take a look <A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031230/images/5255mhz..." target="_new">For Yourself</A>

<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
January 7, 2004 3:58:05 AM

Oh, and if you'd rather believe some random guy than <A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031230/images/5255mhz..." target="_new">look for yourself</A>, you don't even deserve the right to speak.

<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
January 7, 2004 4:01:15 AM

Oh, you might want to check that math, divide 5255.4 by 17 you get 309.14. Where I went to school we rounded 4 or less downward. But heck, some PROGRAMs do worse, simply apending the following digits.

<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>
January 7, 2004 4:08:14 AM

Quote:
So when you run out of someone legit complaints, you turn to total lies?

I looked very carefully at that picture, no evidence of modification that I can see even at 16x resolution, you're making this one up. But just in case you don't believe me, take a look For Yourself

I don't think we're talking about the same P4 here. I don't care to dispute the 5.2GHz part; I'm talking about the "pre-release" 3.6GHz part from way back that was all-too-obviously a photochopped ~2.2GHz ES. That oddball THG stunt still lives in 'netwide infamy.

<i><Lionel Hutz> I'll be defending...The SCO Group!!!??? Even if I lose, I'll be famous!</i><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by kelledin on 01/07/04 00:09 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2004 4:17:49 AM

If you read that old article back then when the picture still existed it said the picture was fake. The picture was a promotional stunt placed in order to get you to read the article. In other words, they told the truth in the article, if you didn't get a laugh out of the picture you had no sense of humor.

<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>
January 7, 2004 4:18:00 AM

you might want to read the review ;) 
"Since we only had P4 processors with a fixed multiplier (multiplier lock), it was necessary to substantially raise the FSB speed to achieve a clock rate beyond the 5000 MHz mark."
look at the WCPUID. the multiplier is 2 - 17. this is not an available chip, its an elite engineering sample chip. the multiplier is not locked, as you can see. its not complicated. a 17x multiplier on a 3.2C? LOL!!! that gives 3.4GHz, and until they update the site to show that its an ES chip and not a 3.2 or 3.4, expect everyone to keep mentioning it (until you accept it). if its a typo, they're being unprofessional (as i said). if its not they're lying and being unprofessional, like they are with the wattage figures. its their job to get things right, altho i suppose you dont care if it shows your system in a good light. i dont think for a second its a typo, no one is that unbalanced to obtain an ES chip and not be able to correctly type the speed into a word processor. if they cared, it wouldnt be an error. and if they dont care, or want to mislead, theyre not worth reading. unless its good for your ego to think your system is the best, when in fact its not overall.

did you even notice, at your site, my comment about the picture being replaced? LOL!! the original, as i said, is still available. its over as XS.
you're bashing kelledin for something i said, which you dont believe because you havent read beyond THG.
if its truncated, thats fair enough.

there are signs that its been altered tho, as i said twice now. and they said it was stable @ 4.7, but no benchmarks. O....K. XS's thread is worth a read, particularly interesting is that THG pulled the original pic then ;)  even more interesting. nothing to hide then?

as to your other comment about setting up a P4 and beating A64's, if the P4 is so unbeatable, you wont mind a little 3dmarking. you havent got a chance stock or overclocked unless you can get it to about 4.2GHz.
all in fun you understand :D 

i have no idea what you're spouting with 1) 2) 3), as far as i can tell THG including any overclocked scores is just total balls whatever they do it for, unless they overclock properly, and overclock both systems. its also unfair, considering how badly the P4 gets beaten on air by the A64 in gaming/ 3dmarking, and tbh, who overclocks for MPEG encoding? moronic.

why does this pos site keep wanting to install "chinese simplified" fonts?
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by blackstarFM on 01/07/04 01:39 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2004 4:37:48 AM

Nope, the typo was in the 3400+ price being mentioned as a 3200+, has anyone tried bringing that one to their attention? Probably not, you'd rather complain about conspiracies. I supposed jews run the government too. And LBJ killed JFK. And there's a conspiracy to hide alien technology being used by the new world government.

I stated from the outset that it was a 3.4EE, I questioned however if it was an engineering sample since the Xeon on which the EE is based is not locked in the downward direction.

In this case they are of course refering that the multiplier can't be raised in the UPWARD position, hence it's LOCKED from going up! Of course that doesn't matter to you either because anything that defeats your arguement is null and void.

Speaking of nonsense, didn't Tom's show the 3400+ winning 3DMark 2001SE? Doesn't it show the 3400+ winning the 3DMark 2003 CPU test? I just checked, indeed it does. So are you implying that THG lied and said the 3400+ lost those test when indeed they said the 3400+ won? Why yes, you are.

Why would you say THG shows your CPU loosing when it shows your CPU winning? You tell me! Could it be that you're lying to cover your arse because you know you're wrong? I can find no other explaination.

Did I say the P4 is unbeatable? I don't even OWN a 3.2C, nor a 3400+, why would I say such things. Indeed I didn't, are you throwing out a red herring hear too? Why I believe you are sir.

In other words, is it possible that you're so biased that you feel a need to make things up when your arguments bear no merrit? This would be the most likely explaination.

Which makes me wonder what brought you here in the first place. Did Kyle send you over from [H]omo forums just to annoy me? Do you people think you can actually gain more audience by discrediting one of the few sites on the net that try to be unbiased? Why is it when Anandtech post similar findings you don't go after them, do they pander to you more? Do you find their reporting style to be more condescending? Because Anandtech is the OTHER site that I believe tries to be unbiased rather than pandering to the interest of a few crybaby loudmouths.

<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>
January 7, 2004 4:57:19 AM

heh, the price is wrong as well. i must admit, i never read the review :D  i only read the conclusion. im talking about the 5GHz LN2 P4, which and i quote "the 3.2 GHz version in our example" is "multiplier locked". before you go off at a bizarre tangent in an effort to justify them doing that, accept that whether or not they can change multi's, its an EE chip not a 3.2C chip and that they stated its a 3.2C. be as pedantic as you want, its not what they stated.

3dmark benches losing?
i didnt say they lost the test - i said they're not getting very good scores, and indeed they're not. its not my CPU btw ;)  and wont be, as i am waiting for 939 pin san diego. a 3200+ and XT is getting 21K stock, or very close, and there is a discrepancy between the intel/ amd scores that most of the internet has become familiar with as being uniquely toms. if you analyze fx51 benches and take into account the drop in perf. from reg. ram, and the increase from dual channel, and see overclocked A64's at 2.2 (higher fsb tho), and finally look at all other sites scores, you can see theres something wrong here.

the EE is multiplier locked. i never questioned whether or not you said it was a 3.2 or 3.4, but the review states its "multiplier locked" which it isnt, EE or no. and no retail chip has a 2x multiplier, not even a Xeon (and no, i dont know if they are locked or not or indeed care).

ok, so you deny totally you had another post, in which you said you would build and bench an intel and amd system? going to use k62's and p2's are you? i thought you were being relevant. credit where its due tho, so not here obviously.

im here because i saw you violently, abusively and pointlessly trolling in about 3 threads, after i visited the site after reading on a few forums how totally down the pan THG reviews are going. i found this hard to believe, as the same news was floating around in 2001, and i couldnt see how they could get worse. its about the same IMHO as it was then.
heh, audience? what do i care? its all going to come grinding to a halt here at some point anyway, and as far as i can tell, most of the forum members who comment seem to agree. did you look @ XS?

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by blackstarFM on 01/07/04 02:04 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 7, 2004 5:07:52 AM

You know I find it funny when a brand spanking newbie starts spewing bullcrap to a regular who posts more relevent information in a week than the newbie has posts on their entire account. Then talks bs. Funny.

<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/shadus.html" target="_new">Shadus</A>
January 7, 2004 5:20:46 AM

LOL.

ok, you answer then..

5GHz p4
----------------
a) 5GHz LN2 bench chip mentioned as a 3.2, tho it is running a 17x multi (3.4GHz) and has unlocked multipliers
b) XS threads all over about photochopped WCPUID of 5GHz LN2 chip, its a bloody ES model not P4 3.2.. the section to the right of "CPU" would show "ES" but has been removed. however, he didnt edit the multipliers being unlocked. http://www.theforumisdown.com/uploadfiles/1203/untitled... << original image. what a muppet ;) 
c) THG replaces WCPUID screenshot with cleaner one :) 

3400+ review
--------------------
d) THG get substantially lower 3dmark 01 scores (running old version 330 patched 3d01, which is a violation) then anywhere else
e) THG A64 boards (except 940 pin, which uses R ram) running worse timings. dont be naive and say AMD sys wont run tight timings ffs. beta bios. old bios used in A64 benches for some reason.
f) cheating nVIDIA drivers used, not latest version (correct me if wrong). old version of aquanox.
g) "3400+ will likely put out around 95 Watts"? the 3700+ is reported by AMD to produce 89W. http://www.theforumisdown.com/uploadfiles/1203/amdroadm... << remember, THG had access to this too.
h) wrong price of 3200+ mentioned
i) where are via scores for A64? it was mentioned, but no test results. interesting, as its faster clock - clock slightly then nFORCE3.
j) every other site shows the 3400+ scoring overall, better then toms.
k) the amount of encoding benchmarks suggests that people may want to use more then one kind of encoding program, yet there are no compression tests. illogical.

answer those, or at least accept they have some meaning. because, as i say, the only two reviews i looked at from toms in the last year (5GHz one and 3400+ review) are so wrong its actually funny that "professionals" give them any credit at all anymore.
if they're the kind of site that are a bit slapdash, that makes a few mistakes, why dont they make any in AMD's favour, or to Intel's detriment?

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by blackstarFM on 01/07/04 02:39 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2004 5:36:52 AM

Try to understand, if a CPU has a multiplier limit of 17x, it's locked. I've seen P4's with multipliers up to 26 (2.6A), so it's not a limit of the technology, it's a cap. So perhaps they should have used the word cap instead of locked. At any rate it VALIDATES what they said, that is, they had to use ultra-high bus speeds because of that cap, which they called a lock. Cap/lock is an argument in terminology which in no way infers dishonesty, so you'd be best to reread this until you understand it and leave it rest.

Yes, I deny saying within the past month that I plan to build and bendh both Intel and AMD systems. Find the post. Are you throwing more red herrings on the trail?

Yes, it's as good as it was then, idiots spewing all kinds of conspiracy theories about whatever they want, then crying foul play/violence/abuse when they're told the truth.

So now that you understand that then ment a LIMIT when they said lock (as in, locked max), your only argument is against me even posting in the first place. Thanks.

<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
January 7, 2004 5:43:27 AM

Like I told your buddy, they listed the right price for the 3400+, but had a typo in calling it the 3200+. And you'd rather whine than tell them. Proving your worthlessness.

That link, are you griping about the dots next to the letter U? I thought you said the NUMBERS were fake, not the letter U?

<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>
January 7, 2004 5:50:39 AM

I don't think that amdzone is a truth teller.
January 7, 2004 6:06:50 AM

how can they state that its a p4 3.2 and its multiplier locked, when they are running it at a multi of 17? thats misleading, as it openly states it is a 3.2.

if you can see available multipliers in WCPU, its not a standard chip at all. it is an ES chip, or the screenshot is of one.

edit - i didnt say the numbers LOL!! *everything's a "gripe" or a "whinge" or an "annoyance" to you, isnt it?

edit #2 - tell them about the 3400+? i emailed toms as soon as i found out.. heh. you're projecting m8. i take it you didnt email them :D 

understand that a 3.2 does not have a 17x multiplier, and does not have multi's 2 - 17 either (and, a 533bus 2.6A will have higher multis).

i am annoyed, as people keep avoiding the questions here. makes more sense to me to answer them, rather then moan about people asking them. its not any kind of answer unless those issues are addressed.
i think the questions are annoying you.

i confused you with some other similar user then, your posts were very similar.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by blackstarFM on 01/07/04 03:16 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 7, 2004 6:29:32 AM

i wouldnt trust any one site, ever. you have to look around and find the general concensus, or better yet make some online friends who have the hardware in question and ask them.
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2004 6:38:58 AM

Hell, it's an engineering sample, it might have been labled 3.2 for all I know. Here's what you get: A locked set of multipliers from 2x to 17x. And they were very sloppy about not explaining every...single...detail.

They should have wrote this instead: We used a P4 3.2 engineering sample with a multiplier selection locked between 2x and 17x. Instead they just said "We used a P4 3.2" and later instead of "locked between 2x and 17x" they just said "Locked".

They should hire you as an editor, now that you know that it was sloppy work and not an intent to deceive. You could ask them questions when they don't explain everything, and get the article right before it goes to print.

Nope, I'm not projecting on the 3400+ thing, I'm just saying instead of calling them a lier you should tell them they made a mistake.

<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>
January 7, 2004 6:54:24 AM

i did tell them they made a mistake :/ 

you are making the point that an ES chip is locked in the same way a normal P4 3.2 would be. not so. remember, the bench was done @ 17 multi. a normal 3.2 could never run @ 17 multi.. a 3.4 could, but THG didnt use one of those - they used an ES chip requested directly from Intel.

theres potentially a world of difference between an engineering sample chip rated up to 3.4GHz @ 800FSB then a standard 3.2C bought in a shop.

essentially, i dont think the clocks would be achievable with a non ES sample 3.2 - or at least, much much more difficult (FSB?)
the ES thing is a major omission to make - also, that they edited out the ES text to hide it. thats underhand, however you look at it. incredibly so.
im not being pedantic here, if any manufacturer did that kind of thing (released benchmarks for chips of different types) they'd be court cases all round. there should be here.

edit - you have misconstrued my point, or are being sarcastic. i do think it was intentionally to decieve, but thats beside the point. it doesnt make any difference to what they did here. i looked into it with an open mind, and this is the conclusion i came to.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by blackstarFM on 01/07/04 04:01 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2004 6:59:23 AM

Now that we agree shall we hammer Omid's inbox? After all, he is in CHARGE now that Tom himself no longer participates in the review/editorial process!

<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>
January 7, 2004 7:05:53 AM

why would they release such unscientific reviews, if they were capable of doing them properly? i think its personal bias, and im not directing that at you.
!