THG is the worst reviewer... EVER!

chipz88 · Jan 7, 2004

In light of THG's new a64 3400+ "review" (if you really think you can call it that) I've been disgusted by this site just once to much. I've decided to take the liberty of tearing apart this review and exposing what utter bullshit it is. Let's go page for page, shall we? For those of you looking for review, it is <A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/index.html" target="_new">here</A>. Let's show just how biased this "impartial" reviewer really is.

Page 1:

Article Info
AMD Looks to Upstage Intel's P4 3.2 GHz Performance with Athlon64 3400+
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Created:
January 6, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By:
Patrick Schmid
Bert Töpelt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category:
Processors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary:
The Athlon64 3400+ sure is fast, but can it beat the 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 performance-wise?

The Fours Have It: Athlon64 3400+ For 2004

The Athlon64 continues to gain in popularity since its September 2003 launch. One reason for this is that the processors are generally readily available; another, however, is that more and more manufacturers now make motherboards for the processor with Socket 754.

But that alone is not enough to justify the around $400 / €425 asking price for an Athlon64 3200+ - not exactly pocket change. AMD is aware of that fact and responded a few weeks ago with the Athlon64 3000+. It's a 3200+ with a pared down 512 KB L2 cache and the same 2.0 GHz clock speed. At $225 / €250, the price is the only thing they skimped on.

Umm... wtf is this [-peep-]!? The athlon 64 3200+ is <A HREF="http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-116-164&catalog=343&depa=1" target="_new">$299 @ newegg</A>. The p4 3.2c on the other hand will set you back <A HREF="http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-116-164&catalog=343&depa=1" target="_new">$397 @ newegg</A> I'll give the reviewer a little slack here, no doubt the prices have dropped on the 3200+ since the release of the 3400+. But even at $400, the a64 is still roughly the same price as Intel's competition. Don't tell me it costs too much, it's the same damn price as the competition! I do agree with the rest of the page, the A64 3000+ is an excellent chip for the money.

Page 2: Quite a worthless page here. We've got a pic of a 3000+ and a chopped up pic of a 3400+ stepping sticker. IMO this page was worthless and unneeded, but at least it isn't full of BS.

Page 3:

How to keep the processor cool without ratcheting down performance remains an issue. With the Athlon64 3200+ you're talking about up to 89 watts being converted into thermal energy; the 3400+ will likely put out around 95 watts.

Right... 89 watts is the peak output of all A64's up to the 3700+. 95 watts is a made-up number THG pulled out of their asses. The rest of the article just seems to babble on about technology that IMO is utterly worthless for a desktop cpu. I can see where it would relevant for a laptop cpu... but this is just stupid IMO. As far as I can tell though, the rest of the article is factual.

Page 4: Yay, they overclocked it, how exciting. Moving on...

Page 5: WTF is this bullshit!? The p4 setup gets ram with 2-2-2-5 timings, and nothing else does!? The only instance different ram should be used is the case of the FX-51, which requires registered ram. Otherwise the same ram should be used throught the entire test on ALL systems. C'mon, how biased can you get? I guess at the very least they were honest about the mem timings.

Page 6: Quake 3 is extremely Intel biased. The default DLL's don't even let AMD cpu's use SSE instructions. We're throwing this one out.

Page 7: SPECviewperf... wtf is this? I bet millions of people world-wide use this one on a daily basis. The first portion of the test shows the cpu's within a single frame per second of each other. Nothing to talk about, we're calling this one a draw. But the second part shows us a different story. The 3400+ is ahead of the 3.2c by more than 20fps. The third portion aslo shows us differences of less than a single frame per second. I find it rather fishy that the 3200+ is doing better than the 3400+ here. Maybe just a discrepancy, but it is a little strange. 3400+ - 1 3.2c - 0

Page 8: What the hell kind of benchmark has hardly more than a single fps difference between a 2500+ and a 3400+? But, I'm here to bitch about THG, not the useless benchmarks people use. 3400+ - 1 3.2c - 1

Page 9: Serious sam is more than 15 frames faster with the 3400+. A hands down victory. 3400+ - 2 3.2c - 1

Page 10: In ET the 3400+ has less than 2 fps difference with the 3.2c. I'm calling this one a draw.

Page 11: The 3400+ bests the 3.2c by nearly 1500 3dmarks. A clear victory here. 3400+ - 3 3.2c - 1

Page 12: About a 3 and a half fps difference here. Nothing to talk about IMO, we're calling it a draw.

Page 13: The 3400+ is well over 30fps faster, a clear victory. 3400+ - 4 3.2c - 1

Page 14: The 3400+ is nearly 15fps faster, score one for the 3400+. 3400+ - 5 3.2c - 1

Page 15: The difference here is a tenth of frame, I'm calling it a draw.

Page 16: Why in God's name would you use a gpu dependant benchmark to measure a cpu's performance!? The missing 100 points from the first half could easily be made up if THG had the brains or lack of bias to use the same ram on all the systems. I'm throwing the first half out. The second half is a little different. It's more cpu dependant (at least when using the same video card to compare) than the first half. The 3400+ has a decent lead, and one that would be larger if THG could've been fair and used the same ram. Another interesting thing to note here is that they didn't even use the latest version of 3dmark03. WTF is that!? I guess it doesn't really matter too much since nVidia's "optimizations" are present in both the 3400+ bench and the 3.2c bench. 3400+ - 6 3.2c - 1

Page 17: Can't say I've ever heard of this game, but I guess it's still there. The 3400+ has the lead by more than 15fps. 3400+ - 7 3.2c - 1

Page 18: The 3400+ is ahead by nearly 9fps here. Not a whole helluva lot, but I'm giving it to the 3400+.
3400+ - 8 3.2c - 1

Page 19: The results here are withing a single frame, I'm calling it a draw. An interesting thing to note here is the lack of default settings. This makes the results uncomparable to any default Aquamark3 benchmarks. A good reviewer should use default settings for a benchmark.

Page 20: I cannot tell a lie, Intel is the king of encoding. 3400+ - 8 3.2c - 2

Page 21: Intel is ahead here by roughly 2%. Not a clear victory IMO, but I'm giving it to them anyway.
3400+ - 8 3.2c - 3

Page 22: The 3.2c has a slight lead here as well, and again I'm giving them the win. 3400+ - 8 3.2c - 4

Page 23: Once again Intel shows its dominance in encoding.
3400+ - 8 3.2c - 5

Page 24: Again we see the 3.2c trouncing the 3400+ in encoding. 3400+ - 8 3.2c - 5

Page 25: Deja vuz. (sp?) 3400+ - 8 3.2c - 6

Page 26: Ya know, you really would think a single test would be enough to show that higher mhz = better encoding power. 3400+ - 8 3.2c - 7

Page 27: Another application that everyone uses in their everyday lives... Another for the 3.2c nonehteless
3400+ - 8 3.2c - 8

Page 28: Bapco is an intel biased POS benchmark and everyone knows it. I'm throwing this one out.

Page 29: Well, for the first time we see the 3.2c doing better than the 3400+ in a real life application that isn't encoding media. 3400+ - 8 3.2c - 9

Page 30: A minor lead for the 3400+. 3400+ - 9 3.2c - 9

Page 31: FFS, how many times do we have to show that the p4 is better for encoding? 3400+ - 9 - 3.2c - 10

Page 32: At last, another real life application. 2fps is nothing to talk about, IMO.

Page 33: The 3400+ absolutely trounces the 3.2c. 10 - 10

Page 34: PCMark is worthless and everyone knows it.

Page 35: How intelligent, benching the perfomance of memory on cpu's and not even using the same memory. Morons. I'm throwing this out.

Page 36:

A close look at all the benchmark results reveals that the new Athlon64 just barely earns the performance rating 3400+. Out of 32 benchmarks, only 13 were decided clearly in favor of AMD's new contender. If you were to evaluate each of the 41 individual disciplines, the result would be even poorer.

Fucktards. Lets have a look now. ^^^ It seems Intel won 10/20 benchmarks with any value whatsoever. And with only 1 exception, these were all media encoding.

At the end of the day, it still lags slightly behind the Pentium 4, a deficit that the 64-bit architecture could compensate for in the medium term, however.

Lags behing the p4? Whatever. Have a look. The ONLY thing the p4 does better is encoding.

Anyone that tells me THG isn't biased is beyond ignorant.

Kanavit · Jan 7, 2004

only recently did AMD adjust the prices on the A64 3200+ $299. It is not the fault of THG for this, the review was written well before that. Gaming benchmarks only represent half of processor performance, there are other apps that are equally important or even more so. depending on user and work preference.

paddy007uk · Jan 7, 2004

A64 ownz, nuff said

Great post!!

lhgpoobaa · Jan 7, 2004

haha good show.I love how you explained your viewpoint.

And i agree with it mostly. Other reviews such as anandtech, hardocp and techreview seem to show the A64 comming out alot better.

One comment though.
Running high resolution benchmarks is perfectly valid.

Pure CPU performance is one thing, however gamers also need to know how it balances out and performs on high detail as well.

Course this also leans more heavily on other factors too like mobo efficiency and ram timings

My Computer is so powerful Sauron Desires
it and mortal men covet it, My Precioussssssss!
:evil:

Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.

pilot · Jan 7, 2004

I have to agree, the setups weren't the same... No wonder "the end of the day went to Intel"!!!

You're giving the AMD system cheap, generic ram that's slower than molasses in January while you're putting it against the Intel system that has Gaming Memory... What do you EXPECT? I'm surprised the AMD machine didn't start crashing after using such lousy memory.

Lord knows there's enough sources for good memory for the AMD 64 chip, I personally use 2 Kingston 512MB sticks rated 2-2-2-2-1T (HyperX). I'm sure that if you used memory that was comparable to the Intel system the day would have gone to AMD.

... unless Tom's hiding something? A special pact with Intel?

Vapor · Jan 7, 2004

I find THG reviews useful since they tend to emphasize workstation performance over gaming (I do game, but there's nothing a good graphics card can't do, IMO). The A64 should have won, it is the better chip overall (and definitely in gaming)...but that seemingly isn't what THG was emphasizing.

Something else that Pentium 4s have (or at least the new ones) is HT (too bad I don't have it)...which really does help people like me who do the encoding work in the background but need to do other stuff as well (only having one puter, of course)...need to do other work too!

Sometimes it's just about perspective...gamers and general users should probably lean toward the A64, while I (and others who use their puters like I do) should probably lean toward a Pentium 4.

THG couldn't do anything about the market's price change...they wrote that article way before the price dropped.

Before you call something the worst--think about other angles. I agree that THG is largely Intel biased, but at the same time one could also say they are workstation-work biased. Maybe gamers should just stay away from THG's CPU reviews...

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.

chipz88 · Jan 7, 2004

Well, I didn't expect myself to be replying to any of this, but here it is. Kanavit, I tried to give them a little slack there. Even if the review was done before the price cuts (which I'm told it wasn't) there is no excuse for such crap. A p4 3.2c will set you back $400 as well, so there is absolutely no reason to say that AMD is overpriced. LHGPooBaa, could you please point me to where I said that high res benchmarks weren't valid? I think a benchmark @ 1024x768 is perfect, being the most common resolution of end users.

... unless Tom's hiding something? A special pact with Intel?

Well, here's my theory. It's my understanding that THG's office and Intel's office are in the same building in Germany. I think THG does their reviews, walks across the hall to Intel's office, shows them their results, and tell them that if they would kindly make a donation to their website they might be able to do a little something for Intel.

Edit: Vapor, the p4 is the obvious chip for encoding, but for anything else it's just silly to buy it over an athlon 64.Edited by chipz88 on 01/06/04 10:18 PM.

dhlucke · Jan 7, 2004

Nice post. The reviews here have been like this for quite some time. I come here for the forum and go to places like Anandtech for the reviews.

_________________________________________
ElectroDwarf loves Americans!

Zoron · Jan 7, 2004

Blah blah blah blah.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Blah blah blah.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

___________________________________________________________

Give it a rest already. Yeah, who cares if 50 other hardware sites say one thing and THG says another? If they all said the same thing, there would be no point in visiting more than one hardware review site, would there? I mean I can start up a site if you'd like... and mouth the exact thing the other guys are saying... just to make you happy. How would you like that? Would I have any more journalistic integrity than you accuse THG of having? Hardly.

It seems if anyone says anything bad about AMD... OH MY GOD!! HOW COULD YOU??!?!? YOU'RE INTEL BIASED!!!!!

I don't see you here complaining when THG was shitting all over Intel for their blunders. Where were the cries of bias then? Cut the crap. It's really getting sickening.

 If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it.

darko21 · Jan 7, 2004

Re: Nice post. The reviews here have been like this for quite some time. I come here for the forum and go to places like Anandtech for the reviews.

Me too, I think a lot of people feel that way.

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.

Crashman · Jan 7, 2004

1.) You should have told them they made a typo instead of calling them a lier when they said 3400+...3400+...3200+ is $400. You knew they meant 3400+. Instead of correcting them you threw a hissy fit, you think they are paying attention? Every heard of constructive criticism?

3) 95W is a number they pulled out of doing simple math based on the peak output of the 3200+. You're probably right when you say nobody cares, but if nobody cares why do you complain?

5) They only ran at the fastest timings their platform and CPU would allow, sorry. I guess what you're saying is they should have handicapped the P4 equally, instead of running both at the peak supported by their hardware. Buy an Apple.

6) I think it's more a point of showing how AMD's have started to catch up with sloppy programing, they used to do much worse in such test. Sloppy programing still exist.

7) Differences in platforms can cause that just as easily as differences in CPU.

16) You don't mean lacked bias, you mean used bias, as in slowing the P4 system down to the RAM timings of the A64. Like I said, they only used what provided the fastest timings on each system. Perhaps another site has a better board or RAM that favors the A64 more.

As for the rest of your whining, I'll agree that a bunch of benches weren't really applicable. They should have helped AMD win by throwing them out. They should have had the common sense (bias) to slow down the P4 system's timings to match the Athlon, so you won't call them biased.

BTW, I'm looking to review a couple boards for another site and compare them. I'm going to show benchmarks for both boards at their peak stable speed. That means one will be clocked higher than the other. Call it bias if you like, but it's true that people actually buy some boards specifically to get the maximum performance at max overclock. And I'll make it fair by also comparing them both at stock speed, but you won't think it's fair when I give the award to the board that supports the fastest stable clock speed

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

papasmurf · Jan 7, 2004

lmao nice post, good work... Yes thgc does seem very intel biased as of late, tis a shame. So many people trust them to tell the truth and are shafted. But that's what journalism is these days, a bunch of liberal hippies hating bush and loving intel...what has the world come to?

Join the TomsHardware IRC channel <A HREF="http://skulls.sytes.net/tom/ " target="_new">http://skulls.sytes.net/tom/ </A>

HardWareBoss · Jan 7, 2004

Fastest clock. VIA No AMD ya their the fastest. Why because you cheated in your results. Clear winner Intel.

Crashman · Jan 7, 2004

Looks like AMD has a great processor, the benchmark results are similar to some other sites I checked, just a tad lower in a couple places. Close enough that platform/driver/etc could make a larger difference.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

rain_king_uk · Jan 7, 2004

I always find having a pinch of salt to hand is useful before reading a THG review these days

blackstarFM · Jan 7, 2004

you could dehydrate the red sea and not have enough salt to make these reviews meaningful

CaptainNemo · Jan 7, 2004

Don't take this the wrong way, but exposing the faults in a supposedly objective review is best done in objective terms (i.e. none of the feck bullshit feck bullshit stuff).

Successfully accusing THG of being wrong will bring you lots of kudos, but all of the hyperbole and polemic makes you sound like an AMD fanboi.

I like the workstation benchies because I do a lot of 3D stuff; gaming benchmarks are useless to me because a) I rarely play games, and b) no one ever uses the games that I do play (such as Il:2-Sturmovik) for benchmarking purposes. However, I don't complain about the inclusion of benchmarks that have no relevance to me.

THG has really gone to the dogs recently; poor/biased/unscientific reviews are one problem, but so is all of the trolling fanboi/polemical nonsense in the forums.

(oh, I am coping very nicely with an XP1800+ based system atm - I'm not interested in AMD versus Intel stuff)

"Some mice have two buttons. Macintosh has one. So it's extremely difficult to push the wrong button." - Apple ad. circa 1984.Edited by captainnemo on 01/07/04 07:51 AM.

pitsi · Jan 7, 2004

3) 95W is a number they pulled out of doing simple math based on the peak output of the 3200+. You're probably right when you say nobody cares, but if nobody cares why do you complain?

95W is not correct so no matter how they calculated it, it is nevertheless wrong.

5) They only ran at the fastest timings their platform and CPU would allow, sorry. I guess what you're saying is they should have handicapped the P4 equally, instead of running both at the peak supported by their hardware. Buy an Apple.

You see, Xbit-Labs used 2-3-2-6 in their review, on ABIT KV8-MAX3 (Socket 754, VIA K8T800). So I can't help wonder why THG used 2-4-4-8. Don't you think that's a bit odd? I agree with you that they shouldn't slow the P4 down but it is obvious that the K8T800 is capable for something tighter than 2-4-4-8.

As for the rest of your whining, I'll agree that a bunch of benches weren't really applicable. They should have helped AMD win by throwing them out. They should have had the common sense (bias) to slow down the P4 system's timings to match the Athlon, so you won't call them biased.

I don't think that this is "whining". It was actually a nice written post and most importantly, with facts. And as I mentioned before, yes, the use of 2-4-4-8 timins shows some kind of bias IMO (I won't get into detail about that, I see no reason to), since it is obvious that the K8T800 can do faster.

Well, AMD is 3 letters while INTEL is 5 letters. Also, AMD starts with an A but INTEL starts with an I. And finally, their last difference is that AMD ends with a D, while INTEL ends with an L.

praseodymium · Jan 7, 2004

What is the use of testing a 64-bit CPU with a 32-bit OS?

Vapor · Jan 7, 2004

Because it runs 32-bit programs and is the best AMD has to offer right now...wouldn't make sense to stack an EE against a 3200+ AXP, now would it? Wouldn't make too much sense to simply ignore AMD's best chips, IMO.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.

Syfer · Jan 7, 2004

small comments.

vapor "I find THG reviews useful since they tend to emphasize workstation performance over gaming (I do game, but there's nothing a good graphics card can't do, IMO). The A64 should have won, it is the better chip overall (and definitely in gaming)...but that seemingly isn't what THG was emphasizing."

"Before you call something the worst--think about other angles. I agree that THG is largely Intel biased, but at the same time one could also say they are workstation-work biased. Maybe gamers should just stay away from THG's CPU reviews"

i can agree about the fact that thg prefers to benchmark
workstation performance rather than performance in games.
but either write it from the beginning or test overall performance rather than doing what they do now.
and if they are to benchmark workstation performance, why not choose test that actually apply to most ppl.

everyone should stay away from THG and their cpu and graphic card reiews\tests, not only gamers.
they feed intel fans with lies as well, by using the benchmarks they do, wich shows fake intel performance.

Zoron "Give it a rest already. Yeah, who cares if 50 other hardware sites say one thing and THG says another? If they all said the same thing, there would be no point in visiting more than one hardware review site, would there? I mean I can start up a site if you'd like... and mouth the exact thing the other guys are saying... just to make you happy. How would you like that? Would I have any more journalistic integrity than you accuse THG of having? Hardly.

It seems if anyone says anything bad about AMD... OH MY GOD!! HOW COULD YOU??!?!? YOU'RE INTEL BIASED!!!!!

I don't see you here complaining when THG was shitting all over Intel for their blunders. Where were the cries of bias then? Cut the crap. It's really getting sickening."

you imbasill,moron, whatever you prefer to be called.
SO THAT MAKES IT OK THEN ? that a rather surprisingly large hw site LIES in their cpu and gp tests, just because a bunch of other hw sites writes facts instead of publishing lies ?
you lack every form of commen sence, you do know that ?
its like saying, wow, newspapers are so boring, they all write the same thing, i wish they could start making up stuff and put in their articles.imbasill. the whole point with a hw site is that you test the hardware seriously, you write the truth and the results you got. it doesnt have to be exactly the same as the next hw site has, its easy to base your tests on different benchmarks etc.

you dumb f..is it that hard to actually get a grip nowadays ?
so what you are saying is, thg lies in a cpu test,we comment upon it, and that makes us amd fanboys that believes that everyone that has something bad to say about amd are intel fanboys..smart one..

when did thg slaughter intel for anything ? show me a proper review.

i understand everyone saying that its nice that thg uses workstation benchmarks etc, but they dont use the proper benchmarks that shows REAL performance.

1 - when thg puts out an article that is totally biased i find it difficult to believe that this was a meir mistake..

2 - no matter how hard you try, thats not the number you will get.

5 - as someone else stated further below, Xbit-Labs used 2-3-2-6 in their review, why doesnt THG do the same ?
and as they are a HARDWARE site, they SHOULD know ( i have no doubt in my mind that they do) that if they mix certain hw they wont get proper scores, i dont know much about the mobo they used for the amd 64 in this test, but looking at the memory they used, i doubt its of any quality. so why not write it ? why not add the comment that says why you havent tested it with proper latency settings.
its like comparing the fx5950 ultra with the latest detonator drivers with a 9800XT with some of the first catalyst drivers that were made, ofcourse the 5950 ultra would win.

Memory latency IS the 3400+'s real strength. The dual-channel Athlon 64 FX requires registered DIMMs, and those add a cycle of latency to memory accesses. As a result, the 3400+ beats everything in our memory latency test. Notice, especially, the massive latency difference between the Athlon XP 3200+ and the Athlon 64 3400+, which run at the same 2.2GHz clock speed. This is one of the main reasons why AMD is now able to run with the Pentium 4 so well.
dont you find it rather strange that they use the cheapest memory at the same time ? while they use some of the most expensive mem on the p4 ? its like having a race, only where the other contender is handicapped and only has one leg.

THG is a useless site, it`s like se&hør, a norwegian crap magazine that makes up stories filled with gossip and publishes them.
sort of like english newspaper the sun with their rambling stories.
how can ANYONE take such a test serious when you look at all the things they have done to insure intel coming out as the
winner ? you do remember that THG is the only site that has actually mentioned the fx5800 ultra with a positive tone ?
THG is probably the most unreliable hw site out there, they always support intel and in most cases, nvidia.

and when the devil will they start using tests that actually apply to us, you know, the users...
you always run the same bias tests wich ofcourse favours intel, even when studies show that some of these programs have certain "cheats" written so they give intel more score.
why not start using proper tests, f.ex more encoding etc.
why not lighwave 7,5c - 3dmax and renderman.
why the devil do they add an p4ee and excluded the fx51 ?

Vapor · Jan 7, 2004

When you say both boards (for your review), do you mean A64 boards or A64 and P4 platforms?

Either way, post the link here when it goes up...it sounds really interesting (because I would OC any newer system I got to its max).

Are you planning on testing multiple P4s (i.e., the 2.4C, 2.8C and 3.2C [you'd have to throw a 2.6C in the mix, IMO] to see which processor at max speed is the fastest}? Also, what kind of cooling is going to be used?

Also...would there be a chance you could get your hands on a Scotty (doubtful, IMO, since the review would need actual retail CPUs for realistic results--but it would be really cool) to test?

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.

praseodymium · Jan 7, 2004

If they'd have tested with SuSE Linux for AMD64 with Unreal Tournament 2003, we could've seen what AMD really can do.

Vapor · Jan 7, 2004

99% of people wouldn't be able to do anything with the review though (not too many people use Linux and only a small percent of them use it for gaming [mainly because there are so few games]). I would only take it as a hint of what's to come with 64-bit performance.

I agree that it would show the true colors of A64, but the current usefulness of such a review is pretty much nonexistent. Besides, THG doesn't plan on showing off any AMD CPU anytime soon (FX at 2.8GHz is all we'll get I suspect), so don't look for it here.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.

SoDNighthawk · Jan 7, 2004

HEY!! Chips I don't know if you can get to this site quickly we are located in Canada, and a lot of you chaps are out of the UK. I never have problems going to UK sites for patches anyways here is a great spot to look at CPU prices we have to contend with on the new AMD 64's.. Oh we also have most other CPU's here to real easy left hand menu to shop from.

http://www.pccyber.ca/scrMain.asp

Barton 3200+ 400MHz
A7N8X Deluxe
Liquid
2x512 KinstonHyperX PC3200
GeForce FX5900
Maxtor DiamondMaxPlus9@80Gig
SONY CD 52x
SONY RW 52x/24x/52x
SONY DVD 16x/40x

THG is the worst reviewer... EVER!

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Illustrious

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Polypheme

Splendid

Distinguished

Polypheme

Distinguished

Splendid

Polypheme

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Share this page