http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16245
Tom's Hardware (THG) came to a less than positive conclusion when it said, "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." (3).
The enthusiast weighted benchmark index
We'll use THG's Athlon 64 3400+ review as an example, since it was critical of the chip's performance and its benchmarks generally show the P4 in a good light; but this could be applied to any review. If we put THG’s review benchmarks into their respective groups, and also add an appropriate weighting to reflect from an enthusiast standpoint the importance of each category, it becomes obvious that the 3400+ truly merits its rating.
The first thing to note in the gaming group is that the 3400+ won almost 75% of the disciplines. For many enthusiasts that would be enough to warrant the model number rating. When one also factors in that many would consider it the gaming equal to the 3.2 GHz P4EE as well, who is going to seriously tell the gaming enthusiast that the 3400+ barely earns its rating?
When everything is tallied together, the 3400+ comes out with 48 points and the P4 with 38, which is 56 and 44 percent of the weighted total. So when the weighted index is brought to bear, the 3400+ more than meets its requirement.
Does the weighted index
concur with the collective judgment?
For those that were critical of the 3400+'s performance, the weighted index certainly paints the 3400+ in a very different light. But can that be shown to be representative? One doesn't have to look very far to find out.
THG's own 2K3 Readers' Choice Awards voted the Athlon 64 FX-51 the best innovation in CPUs. (5). Its lead over the second placed P4 was 19.5%. From that it can be inferred that the 3400+, which offers comparable performance at over $300 less, would have won THG's award if it had been available at the time of the poll, and would probably have increased the winning margin as well.
X-bit labs had its own readership awards which corroborated THG's readership viewpoint as well, but to a far greater degree. AMD garnered two-thirds of the vote to overwhelmingly win the best CPU maker of 2003. Athlon 64 was no doubt the catalyst for that winning margin. Intel had to settle for the remaining third of the poll. (6).
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.
Tom's Hardware (THG) came to a less than positive conclusion when it said, "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." (3).
The enthusiast weighted benchmark index
We'll use THG's Athlon 64 3400+ review as an example, since it was critical of the chip's performance and its benchmarks generally show the P4 in a good light; but this could be applied to any review. If we put THG’s review benchmarks into their respective groups, and also add an appropriate weighting to reflect from an enthusiast standpoint the importance of each category, it becomes obvious that the 3400+ truly merits its rating.
The first thing to note in the gaming group is that the 3400+ won almost 75% of the disciplines. For many enthusiasts that would be enough to warrant the model number rating. When one also factors in that many would consider it the gaming equal to the 3.2 GHz P4EE as well, who is going to seriously tell the gaming enthusiast that the 3400+ barely earns its rating?
When everything is tallied together, the 3400+ comes out with 48 points and the P4 with 38, which is 56 and 44 percent of the weighted total. So when the weighted index is brought to bear, the 3400+ more than meets its requirement.
Does the weighted index
concur with the collective judgment?
For those that were critical of the 3400+'s performance, the weighted index certainly paints the 3400+ in a very different light. But can that be shown to be representative? One doesn't have to look very far to find out.
THG's own 2K3 Readers' Choice Awards voted the Athlon 64 FX-51 the best innovation in CPUs. (5). Its lead over the second placed P4 was 19.5%. From that it can be inferred that the 3400+, which offers comparable performance at over $300 less, would have won THG's award if it had been available at the time of the poll, and would probably have increased the winning margin as well.
X-bit labs had its own readership awards which corroborated THG's readership viewpoint as well, but to a far greater degree. AMD garnered two-thirds of the vote to overwhelmingly win the best CPU maker of 2003. Athlon 64 was no doubt the catalyst for that winning margin. Intel had to settle for the remaining third of the poll. (6).
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.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram