Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GETTING WORSE REP BY THE MIN, DUE2 BOGUS 3400+ REV

Tags:
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 7, 2004 1:52:12 PM

What the flying donkey balls is this???

P4 setup:
4 x 256 MB / 5ns / 64 Bit (Corsair TwinX)
XMS3200 (CMX256A-3200C2 CL2 T1)
CL 2.0-2-2-5

A64(754) Setup:
2 x 512 MB / 5ns / 64 Bit (TakeMS)
MS64D64020U-5
2 x 512 MB CL2.0-4-4-8 (200 MHz)

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/athlon64_3400-...

So the Pentium 4 setup gets Corsair XMS at full cas2 ratings and the A64 setup gets TakeMS ram?? who the hell are they? not to mention how much a ras to cas of 4 and precharge of 4 will cripple a system. Thomas Pabst what the hell are you on, Intels payroll??

For a reviewer to deliberately cripple a system in order to favour another product is really lousy!!!!!! I wonder if the inquirer will mention this. Whether its pressure from intel or whatever causing this, as review site your integrity is appalling. Say what you will to excuse yourself but none of it will be taken as truth. The pap your spouting is complete bullsh8t and there is no excuse.

You and i both know the difference in memory timings would make a difference (a big difference) so why not mention that in your review and why you used TakeMS 2-4-4-8 ram??

Do a reverse test with the TakeMS memory in the intel and the XMS 2/2/2/5 in the FX/3400+ and you will see the difference

Why AMD doesn't sue you for something or other i don't know.

Wake up and smell the coffee tom as its now cold and tastes bad!

What next? running amd cpus at 1/2 their rated FSB for review purposes?

Bah, complete trash!!!!

Your either doing it deliberately or very very stupid!

That fact the A64 still outperforms the P4 in most tests just shows how good it is considering the poor quality slow timed memory you were using. Any harware competant person who noticed this too will know the A64 is a cracking cpu for the money if it can nail top end P4's on crippled ram ;)  for pretty much the same price and after the price drops even more so :p 

TW4TS!!
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ITSALLBS on 01/07/04 11:03 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

More about : worse rep min due2 bogus 3400 rev

January 7, 2004 2:10:28 PM

OH STFU.

How many threads are you going to start on this ONE @#()$*@#) TOPIC!?!?!?!?!!!???

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
January 7, 2004 2:15:51 PM

TakeMS memory? Yeah, I think "wtf" is right. I googled it and every site appeared to be German. Is this a German product? Really couldn't tell much from the articles I googled cuz the translator is pretty lame.

It seems strange to use ram that doesn't even have an English language article on the web?

XP 2000+
MSI KT3 ULTRA-2 KT333
Maxtor 60GB ATA 133 7200RPM
512MB PC2700
9600 Pro
Win98SE
January 7, 2004 2:16:29 PM

As many needed to prove how the integrity of THWG is appalling, you ignorant nonce!
January 7, 2004 2:23:31 PM

Zoron, is ITSALLBS telling lies ?
No he isnt, so let him say what he thinks about it.
January 7, 2004 2:26:51 PM

Thank you, i appreciate that :-)
January 7, 2004 2:33:13 PM

As a matter of fact, he is.

I mean that's the definition of lying these days, right? If you don't reach the same conclusion as everyone else, you're lying.

Cool.

I wish I could just make up definitions for words on the fly and get away with it.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
January 7, 2004 2:36:06 PM

So if im lying why did it specify TakeMS ram was used in the A64(socket 754) system and Corsair in the P4C system? So if im lying are you saying Tom is lying by saying he used it?

What you are trying to imply is truly beyond the boundarys or stupidity, or is that a lie? hmm :p 
January 7, 2004 2:40:58 PM

Would you rather they post their conclusions without telling you EXACTLY how they reached them... like some other sites do? And you have the audacity to call me an idiot. They didn't 'lie' they told you exactly what they used and how they used it. Last I checked, that didn't constitute lying.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
January 7, 2004 2:47:00 PM

You said i was lying, i said tom used TakeMS in the A64 and corsair in the P4. You just said tom wasnt lying therefore proving im not lying. Thanks for clearing that up.

Yes im glad they showed it, however there was no reasoning behind the fact they used slower memory in the A64 (S754) system than in the P4 system. And no mention in the overall conclusion. Looks like it was sneaked in to me.

Also its odd how the only google hits are german. Looks like they popped out to the nearest store and picked up the cheapest crap they could find.

Are you honestly saying using high performance memory in one system and generic slower timed memory in another is fair? Be it the other way round and any fanboyism aside would you still think it was fair?

Quite obviously you wouldn't :) 

And i never said you were an idiot, i said "What you are trying to imply is truly beyond the boundarys or stupidity"
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ITSALLBS on 01/07/04 11:54 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 7, 2004 2:57:58 PM

No reference to TakeMS memory, nor MS64D64020U-5 is on MSI's site for memory compatibility on the K8T Neo board.

However, it has Corsair's memory listed. So there is no reason for him to use that memory at all other than to skew the results.
January 7, 2004 3:46:55 PM

I dont understand what the big deal is its not like they havent used the memory before as seen <A HREF="http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031021/athlon_coole..." target="_new">here</A> oh and <A HREF="http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_64-17..." target="_new"> here</A> too which BTW had the same timings.

Where were you on that one, since as far as I can tell that timeing issue could be a VIA K8T800 chipset limitation. Also last I checked this was the only chipset that ran 775 A64's.(oh wait there some some nforce3 boards that will run 775's as well)

-taitertot

If this post has attitude, seems to be overly aggressive, rude, distasteful to 99% of the users here, and shows a zealous defense of Intel... It’s probably Spud.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by taitertot on 01/07/04 01:02 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 7, 2004 4:02:27 PM

Big problem with that, taitertot.. the memory he used isnt even rated for CL2, it is CL3 memory! the memory he used is MS64D64020U-5, the memory chips on those modules is MS25D25680S-5. These chips are rated for CL3:
http://www.asrock.com.tw/support/memory%20support/P4VX4...
and
http://swe.aopen.com.tw/testreport/mb/ListTestItem.asp?...
That is utterly unexcusable for any reviewer, especially since the Corsair memory used on the P4 machine is listed on the K8T Neo memory compatibility list, and the TakeMS memory is not. Even if he did use the memory before, that does not make it right. Who would be buying an A64 3400+ system and get crappy CL3 memory for it?

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Brian128 on 01/07/04 01:06 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 7, 2004 4:09:35 PM

Not too sure probably the target market this chip is targeting. Plus if your so sure this crippleing is a real issue add the 1-3% difference.

-taitertot

If this post has attitude, seems to be overly aggressive, rude, distasteful to 99% of the users here, and shows a zealous defense of Intel... It’s probably Spud.
January 7, 2004 4:20:54 PM

probably the target market for that chip? you mean enthusiasts? This is a top of the line chip, whoever buys one should be using top of the line hardware.. not some cheap cl3 memory. the difference is in the numbers, look at this one review then look at reviews from all over the web.
January 7, 2004 4:32:47 PM

Its a vanilla A64 not even dual channel stripped down Opteron/A64-FX. Ive also seen the other reviews on the internet in regards to this. They all used Radeons so a direct comparison is nearly impossible.

Also just because someone forks out for the 3400+ doesnt mean they are going to have cash for more expensive memory, these are AMD users we are talking about.

-taitertot

If this post has attitude, seems to be overly aggressive, rude, distasteful to 99% of the users here, and shows a zealous defense of Intel... It’s probably Spud.
January 8, 2004 7:20:21 AM

Quote:
Also just because someone forks out for the 3400+ doesnt mean they are going to have cash for more expensive memory, these are AMD users we are talking about.

what do you mean by that? are you saying that amd users are cheap? or that amd users are stupid? all you do with that statement is show your obvious bias and ignorance.
the majority of amd users are enthusiasts. this means that they care about performance, if i had just forked out a few hundred ££ on a new cpu and mobo im damn sure i wouldnt be getting cheapo ram.
if you cant reply with something sensible and unbiased i suggest you stop typing :) 
"have a nice day"
January 8, 2004 7:33:00 AM

RIGHT! FANBOYISIM ASIDE HERE!!

Would you consider it a fair review be it the other way round.

The TakeMS in the the P4 system and the corsair in the A64 system.

The fact is this memory is not recommended for use on the A64 motherboard used in this review. Using different memory in one system to another esspecially when slower than the other is not an apples to apples comparision is it?

Thats why a believe not only this is a poor review, its a very pathetic attempt to make one product look better than the other under unfair circumstances plain and simple!

Post not directed at the user above but others disputing my view ie. taitertot & Zoron

@taitertot, I use Mushkin PC3500 Level II in my AMD system that aint cheap mate 8-) <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ITSALLBS on 01/08/04 04:36 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 8, 2004 8:08:17 AM

a) This is the forum. 99% of people here have nothing to do with THG itself, so ppl like you saying "YOU ARE BIASED" is just crap.
b) <b><font color=red>IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE SITE THEN DON'T [-peep-] COME HERE</b></font color=red> At least he states <i>exactly</i> what h/w he's using, and exactly what timings unlike many sites.

I personally don't really give a crap what he thinks, what you think, or what anyone else thinks, but the primary purpose of this forum is for people to post information, and ask questions to help them with problems. BS posts like this achieve <i>nothing</i>. please take your crappy attitude, shove it up your a$$ and [-peep-] leave.

I can't stand olives, so I don't eat them. If I was like you, I'd eat them at every opportunity and then dance around saying "THESE ARE DISGUSTING!!"...

I'm sick of this place being bogged down with this crap. I would say mods should remove this sort of post, but then you'll just get the "see - they remove the posts which contradict them" conspiracy BS.

---
<font color=red>Those of you who think you know everything are annoying to those of us who do.</font color=red> :wink:
January 8, 2004 8:25:53 AM

So i feel the nessesary need to point out a widely used site which is supposed to be independant, favouring one product over another under unfair circumstances. The fact alot of people dont think this is right is daft. The whole point of forums is freedom of speech this is my view and I don't care what you think.

I'm just sticking up for a company which takes borderline slander from this site.

Btw,

Compare this:

Toms Conclusion of the A64 3400+:

"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.

Two things should be considered here, however: for one, the big "64 bit" unknown remains a non-factor and for another, the benchmarks in which the Athlon64 shines are significant. In practically all of the gaming benchmarks, the 3400+ is able to beat its archrival Pentium 4 - sometimes soundly. X2, Warcraft III, Unreal Tournament 2003, Splinter Cell, Serious Sam, Gunmetal, Comanche and Aqua Mark: the Pentium 4 has to concede victory in all of them.

Meanwhile, thanks to its higher clock speeds, the Pentium 4 comes out on top for encoding tasks such as creating MPEG-4 and MPEG-2 video or MP3 audio as well as for data compression with WinRAR 3.2 - although sometimes only by a hair. It also dominates in the case of professional tasks with 3D Studio Max or Cinema 4D, while the Athlon64 outperforms the Pentium with Lightwave 7.5.

The results with just under 8% overclocking to 2,365 MHz indicate decent performance increases for many applications, mainly due to the integrated memory controller. That also goes to show that the 64-bit Athlon stands to gain a lot from increased clock speeds. For now, however, we're dubious that there'll be an Athlon64 with 2.4 GHz based on 130 nm; 90 nm seems more probable.

That leaves us with a clear description of the Athlon64 3400+: it's a top quality CPU that's especially suitable for games and that also lives up to its model name - albeit only in this category. 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. In the short term, Cool & Quiet could do the job, as Intel doesn't offer this type of energy management for desktop processors yet. We can only hope that the motherboard makers take note."

X-bits Conclusion of the A64 3400+:

"The newcomer rated as 3400+ supports 2.2GHz core clock, which is the same as that of the Athlon 64 FX-51 announced in September 2003 and positioned as a solution for hardware enthusiasts. It will allow a considerably low-cost Athlon 64 3400+ demonstrate very attractive price-to-performance ratio, as it will offer comparable performance at a pretty low price of $417 at launch. The single-channel memory controller integrated into Athlon 64 3400+ doesn’t slow down its performance too much compared with that of the Athlon 64 FX-51 boasting a dual-channel memory controller. Another advantage of the new processor is its ability to work with unbuffered memory modules featuring lower latencies than the registered ones used in Athlon 64 FX-51 based platforms. As a result, the performance difference between Athlon 64 FX-51 and the new Athlon 64 3400+ is hardly noticeable at all.

So, it is now possible to build the fastest desktop PC on a Socket754 platform. Thanks to the higher working frequency of the new Athlon 64 3400+, this CPU can successfully compete not only with the top Pentium 4 processor models, but also with the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition.

However, the situation in the market will change dramatically in the beginning of February 2004. This is when Intel is expected to announce its new Prescott core and Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.4GHz, which should definitely raise the performance maximum for Intel solutions.

As for Athlon 64 FX-51, it can hardly remain an attractive buy right now. The CPU itself, as well as the mainboards designed for it and the memory it supports cost considerably more, however, there are hardly any evident advantages of this more expensive platform over the fresh Athlon 64 3400+. Therefore, we can expect a new Athlon 64 FX-53 CPU with higher 2.4GHz core clock to be released soon, as it will have to “show its place” to Athlon 64 3400+ and to become a worthy competitor to the upcoming Extreme Edition 3.4GHz from Intel."

Hmm, which one do i feel is more reputable? (Dont answer that!)

Take note of these two parts:

Toms "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."

Xbit "So, it is now possible to build the fastest desktop PC on a Socket754 platform. Thanks to the higher working frequency of the new Athlon 64 3400+, this CPU can successfully compete not only with the top Pentium 4 processor models, but also with the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition."
January 8, 2004 8:43:16 AM

If I was to come here with the aim of asking a question, and spotted that someone else had already done so, then I would see what responses HE gets, I wouldn't bother re-posting.

If I was to post some information about something, the same applies.

So you come here, see half the threads on the first page are ppl like you saying exactly what you are saying, yet still you make this post? Why? what has it acheived? All it does is draw attention away from people who might actually want help, or have some other interesting info.

Just for the record, I personally don't agree with the reviewer not using identical RAM - I would be happy with it only if it was (as someone above suggested) some issue with the chipset used not working with tighter timings for some reason (I haven't looked into this myself). But at the end of the day, at least he did state that the RAM was different...

I just get annoyed that <i>so many</i> threads of this nature pop up every time they review a CPU. Justified critisism or not, if someone else has started such a thread, add to that one, there's no need for another. That is what I have a problem with - I really don't care who makes the better CPU, until I want to buy one, and then I'll research comprehensively before choosing (i.e. read as many reviews as possible)

---
<font color=red>Those of you who think you know everything are annoying to those of us who do.</font color=red> :wink:
January 8, 2004 8:45:01 AM

Just wait till windows 64 bit comes out. Then you will see some major fudging. Personally I think its the intel inside idiot outside group here that have made the prejudice happen. They are a small but obnoxious group. Please feel free to stick around and bug them.
January 8, 2004 8:56:41 AM

I came here to get my question answered not someone elses whether its the same or similar i dont care, i want to show i have a view on this and i have spotted toms dodgy review setup.

I dont care if it fills the first page with threads, it just goes to show how strong people are apposing these crippled reviews.

Like i said i don't care what you think. If you dont like seeing this thread dont bump it ;) 

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ITSALLBS on 01/08/04 05:57 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 8, 2004 9:19:34 AM

Quote:
I came here to get my question answered not someone elses whether its the same or similar i dont care

Sorry, but this makes you childish, attention-seeking & selfish.

As I said I didn't particularly agree with the review myself, but <i>I</i> didn't start a thread about it, as I saw that other people already had, so attention was being drawn. instead I contributed to other threads where I thought my input might be of value.

incidentally, I'm not aiming this critisism at you personally, but at everyone who's doing this. Yours was just the one that finally got me worked up enough to post something on the subject.

---
<font color=red>Those of you who think you know everything are annoying to those of us who do.</font color=red> :wink:
January 8, 2004 9:29:12 AM

Hmm, so im selfish now, thanks 8-| , funny how someone can make immediated assumptions of someones personality from a forum. I wanted to express my view on toms approach to his reviews, do think you i need to take the time and seach endless threads that have come to the point of bitter arguments and add my view in and end up having it locked/deleted No.

I wanted to point out why the view of TWHG is getting worse by the day.

Back on topic, in "AMD's and Intel's End-of-Year CPU Buyer's Guide" Tom did the same dirty trick with the memory.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031223/cpu-guide-16.h...

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ITSALLBS on 01/08/04 06:30 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 8, 2004 9:48:43 AM

Go back to the first link you did on this thread. I didn't see an EE or an FX chip in any of the benchmarks, yet they are in the list. Why is that?
January 8, 2004 10:09:35 AM

How very true

Really odd :S
January 8, 2004 10:34:47 AM

BEWARE , THESE NEWBIES USERS ARE FUTUREMARK ZEALOTS IN DISQUISE!!!!!!! THEY COME TO TAINT THIS FORUM BECAUSE THEY ARE UNHAPPY WITH THG'S REVIEW ON THE A64 AMD ATHLONS.
FM MEMBERS:BLACKSTAR, MANIA, COOP, BRAIN128, INSTALLB, CHIPZ88, HARLEQUIN, OR ANYONE WITH STRANGER USER RANK.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Kanavit on 01/08/04 07:38 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 8, 2004 12:22:33 PM

care to prove that kanavit?
besides wherever they hail from they have legit points:
1: thg choice of ram was unprofessional at best and biased at worst
2: the conclusion is worded in such a way as to be heavily biased. downplaying the athlons victory as much as possible
January 8, 2004 12:25:34 PM

And there i was saying to Andy other day you shouldn't really have been banned from FM i even went as far as to say i'll miss your funny post. Thanks :-(

Whatever a persons background the fact still stands that memory used in the A64 was of lower performance than in the P4 system which will inevitably lower the scores for the S754 systems.
January 8, 2004 1:03:05 PM

I'll let you in on something here.

I have an issue with the way the review was conducted. Yes, the RAM timings should have been equal on both platforms. I agree that the AMD64 was a little 'crippled' in the review. I don't like it any more than anyone else.

My issue is this: you immediately jump on this and say THG is LYING. Despite being very detailed, open and honest on how they configured their hardware for the test... you insisted on using the word lying. That is what I have an issue with. No one lied. Remember if one opinion doesn't match the majority; it doesn't mean it's a lie.

There was no need to start multiple threads on this issue. You had a question, great... it could have been answered just as easily under one of the other 50 threads on this issue.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
January 8, 2004 1:08:59 PM

Quote:
care to prove that kanavit?
besides wherever they hail from they have legit points:
1: thg choice of ram was unprofessional at best and biased at worst
2: the conclusion is worded in such a way as to be heavily biased. downplaying the athlons victory as much as possible

yessir, i was an ex-member of the Futuremark forums. my user name is still listed there.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Kanavit on 01/08/04 10:11 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 8, 2004 1:10:30 PM

exactly. That was precisely my point... millions of posts are unnecessary, and detract from those with a good reason for posting.

---
<font color=red>Those of you who think you know everything are annoying to those of us who do.</font color=red> :wink:
January 8, 2004 1:17:27 PM

They're both there now (as well as OCed versions).

EDIT: clicked on end of year review by accident!! Wondered where the 41 tests and 3400+ went!!

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Vapor on 01/08/04 10:20 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 8, 2004 1:53:42 PM

Look at the first post i never accused tom of lying!

You said i was lying, i said that if im lying tom must be because im simply pointing out what his review specified. I never said he was lying. God, you are either plain thick or can't read <<shakes head>>

What my point is why did he use it? whats the reason? there is none other than to skew the results. He just grabbed the cheapest memory from the crap box and stuffed it in the A64 rig!

What im saying is he never said anything like, "the A64 performs very well conisidering the poor memory its using, the P4 system has top of the line performance memory where the A64 is using cheap generic CL3 memory"
January 8, 2004 2:06:29 PM

See the post near the top titled "Overheating problem"? I wouldn't even have noticed it if I hadn't gone to the next page. If the 4 or 5 BS posts on here had never been made, <i>that</i> post would've been much more obvious. The man asked for help, and before anyone's replied he's been bumped off the first page.

This is what I'm talking about when I say re-posting a topic when others already have is unfair.

---
<font color=red>Those of you who think you know everything are annoying to those of us who do.</font color=red> :wink:
January 8, 2004 2:12:06 PM

Stop bumping this thread then 8-)
January 8, 2004 2:43:53 PM

Itsallbs, Keep up the good work,

As to Zoron and chipdeath, Itsallbs is very correct THG is missleading the public once again. A note worth topic. If you 2 don't like this thread then don't post in it.

As to if you don't like the THG reviews don't come to the site. I think most come for the forums not the reviews. Only an idiot would trust THG reviews these days after all the obvious bias over the last couple of years.

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 8, 2004 3:28:31 PM

I have no objection to the point being raised, I merely object to it being raised when it's already been obviously raised by others. This opinion could (and should) have been posted in an existing thread - there is nothing <i>new</i> in this thread, so why make a new thread at all?

I pointed to just one example of a legitimate post by someone asking for help which would have remained on the first page for longer if all these 'repeat' threads weren't created.

Granted people do repeat <i>questions</i> in one way or another, but that's not the same thing, as answers to those posts will prove useful to whoever previously posted that question anyway.

And bumping an existing thread makes no difference to those who posted before it, so saying "well stop bumping then" is stupid....

---
<font color=red>Those of you who think you know everything are annoying to those of us who do.</font color=red> :wink:
January 8, 2004 3:38:39 PM

Theres an hour difference from when i last posted, i was quite willing to let the thread sink as noone has anything constructive on topic to say in the thread.

Whats worse than someone complaining adding a thread is pointless and bumping others off the first page. The same person bumping it back to the top after an hour of no responses. I'm not silly my friend.

I wont post for the rest of the day so feel free to leave the thread to sink ;-)
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ITSALLBS on 01/08/04 12:44 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 8, 2004 3:56:46 PM

I use to love coming to there forums cause they use to be informative, but now it is overruned with a lot of people trying to start amd vs Intel and talking a lot of sh!t about reveiws on thg. Now I done even bother looking here to offen cause of post like this and others that I stated. You guys screwed this forum up!

<font color=green>P4 2.6c at 3.25, P4P800(soon to be P4C800 dlx-e), OCZ pc 4000, 2X raptors in a raid, and ATI 9700 pro 390/324.</font color=green>
January 8, 2004 6:16:13 PM

This has nothing to do with Intel or AMD. This is to do with bias bogus untrustworthy reporting.

I know I'd be just as irrated if THG favored AMD over Intel.

I know the terms bias, bogus, untrustworthy, are harsh but unless you know your stuff (not everyone does) you can be easily misslead. and THG does this on purpose.

yeah it pisses me off probably more than it should but it pisses me off none the less.

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 10, 2004 7:33:33 PM

The worst part is, most people who read THG don't post on the forum, and most people don't even know what memory timings are. Heck, they may think higher timings are better. I'm not saying the reviewer has to write up a timing guide or something, just that if the timings were even, there wouldn't be any confusion.
January 10, 2004 7:43:19 PM

If they think that then if they built a system and entered BIOS for some reason, they'd crank up the latency and get worse performance than THG...

Anyway, I think a newer timing review would be beneficial. It would: A) show the true performance of A64 (if done properly) and B) show P4C's lack of dependence on timings (though they have mentioned that a few times). They could also incorporate a nice OCreview into it...make it a performance review or something.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
January 11, 2004 6:00:50 AM

Quote:
The worst part is, most people who read THG don't post on the forum, and most people don't even know what memory timings are. Heck, they may think higher timings are better. I'm not saying the reviewer has to write up a timing guide or something, just that if the timings were even, there wouldn't be any confusion.

i read the 3400+ review, and i thought it was fair. c'mon man the A64 was overclocked to 2.35ghz and it still couldn't beat the P4 3.2 vanilla edition in video, and audio encoding. plus the 3.2c was faster in sysmark2002 internet content creation because of Intel"netburst" architecture. :smile:

<b><font color=red>Aquamark3 score: 26,467</b></font color=red> :smile:
<b><font color=blue>Intel P4 2ghz ATI Radeon 9500 pro</b></font color=blue><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Kanavit on 01/11/04 03:01 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 11, 2004 6:12:50 AM

Yes, we all know that intel wins at encoding ( until Windows 64 bit) and that Bapco is " intel inside". For me, it is the choice of benchmarks. I dont care how shirtty the reviews get, its the people in these forums that make THGC.
January 11, 2004 11:14:02 AM

TBH giving the amd system crap memory and it scoring an extra 1,500 3dmarks over the P4 3.2 shows how good the A64 is for gaming. But what gets me is they used the corsair memory to overclock the 3400, but the crappy memory to run it at stock. So it looks like unless you overclock the 3400, its not gonna be much faster than a 3.2P4.

But if they just used the corsair mem in the first place (which MSI state is ok to use with this mobo) then it would have gotten 19,000 3dmarks stock, not 18,582 and 19,768 overclocked. I wondered why the 3400 seemed to get a huge boost when overclocked just 15mhz fsb, its because they used different memory for the oc......

<A HREF="http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/athlon64_340..." target="_new"> Clicky </A>

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."
January 12, 2004 10:37:36 PM

All i can say is Tom collect your cards on the way out. I have a A64 3200+ and XMS Corsair Twinx . Gives my P4 @ 3ghz a right royal pasting oh an incidently it uses XMS of the same type and amount oh and the p4 uses that in a dual mem controller config. Me thinks someone needs his botty booted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AMD64 3200+
ASUS K8V DELUXE
1GB CORSAIR XMS 3200 CL2 (512MB X 2)
GFORCE FX 5950 ULTRA
MATROX RTX.100 EXTREME
2 X RAID 0 SATA 240GB EACH
January 12, 2004 11:23:29 PM

New troll in town, eh?

First, I'll take my instinct and say you are somebody else (*cough*SoD*cough*). Second, where did you get the 240GB SATA drives?? I've never seen one with the capacity of 240GB, EVER. Also, the 3200+ is supposed to beat the 3ghz (you never said if it were a B or C, it'll especially whip a B). Anyway, the fact that you have an RT.X100 Xtreme with an nVidia 5950U is completely puzzling....

Also, if you have the 1100+ (IIRC--maybe it was 1600, ah, I forget) USD to buy an RT.X100, why not get an FX or Opteron system. Or even get a second system, having one for gaming and one for video editting (which you apparently care a lot about, wny you don't use your P4 3.0GHz for that is also beyond me).

Why you also have your '240GB' drives in RAID0 and video editting (well, it seems capture mainly), is completely st00pid, it's so easy for you to lose data, especially when write speed is marginally better than JBOD. Oh yeah, the fact that you don't have two different drives (non-RAIDed) in a video editting rig is completely telling of the fact you don't know how to setup a good video editting rig.

Also, what's a Gforce?

Anyway, you sound just like SoD, you type your sig just like SoD, you like the exact same things as SoD, you make the same mistakes (just on a larger scale) that SoD has made in his system configuration, you even abbreviate like SoD (not to mention punctuate). Welcome back, SoD.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
January 13, 2004 2:09:40 PM

Not that I don't enjoy a good troll-roasting, Vapor... but I think he meant he has 2 - 120GB SATA drives in RAID 0, giving him a total of 240GB capacity. Of course, that's not immediately clear from what he typed... but I think that explains the '240GB' SATA drive.

EDIT: Errr... I didn't notice the 'each' at the end... have at it! :smile:

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!