Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Tom is biased, lost respect for you

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
  • Intel
Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 22, 2000 9:48:18 PM

How soon Tom forgets that everything is built to Intel spec and AMD would be nothing if it were not for Intels advancements in CPU technology. Intel is not in the business to make a AMD compatable CPU.

P4 is a new micro architecture, nothing is optimized for it yet (or at least the stuff that is being used to benchmark it) Everything that P4 wins at is obviously left out of the article. Tom is struggling hard to find stuff that the P4 loses at because our sample excels at everything we have thrown at it (hardware and software).

Lets start a list of hardware that doesnt run on AMD!
That would be a long fucken list.

I wonder how much AMD has paid Tom for his [-peep-] up articles where he only posts negative about intel every chance he gets.

Tom, I hope your CPU fan dies.
BTW I was looking for you at comdex. I would have been the guy who puched your lights out explaining AMD made me do it.

Its sad that I used to like this site back when celeron overclocking was the bomb. Now Tom can't do a article without bashing Intel.

More about : tom biased lost respect

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2000 10:09:13 PM

The K7 was a new architecture. Did it stop it to perform better than the P3? NO! I do not beleive Tom is willngly bashing Intel, THE FACTS ARE THERE!!! When the PII performed better than a K6-2 in games, we accepted that and thought " at least it's cheap", until the Celeron came. But face it, the days of the K7 have come and it's a great processor all around, a thing which the P4 is not, but the P3 was. Intel thought they could rely on SSE-2 only and it could still happen, but it's gonna be harder than first thought...

I do not think Tom has bias, I only think he tends to like a good processor...



Seoman- Newbie at last!
November 22, 2000 10:13:00 PM

You just stated that the P4 would be a lot better if it had SSE2 optimized apps and then blast AMD for incompatibilities as a result of companies who don't feel like optimizing their products for the Athlon. AMD is an underdog company and they've done hella good because of it. I think you're ignoring the reasons that Toms has suspicions about Intel products; over the last 6 months Intel has done nothing but f*ck up. Name one thing in the past 6 months that Intel has done right and I will name 5 things AMD has done to top that. You sound like you have a bias of your own, so lay of Tom's Hardware. I have complete confidence in his benchmarks knowing that several other top internet hardware review sites match his results.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2000 10:22:43 PM

Well, I can't think of how many times Tom's Hardware have been accused of being biased. Either with Intel or AMD...So drop it...

You are right when you say it's a new architecture and that we have to wait for the SSE2 optimized software, but that's not all to it. What you are saying is as stupid (excuse me) as saying that we can't benchmark the Geforce because very few games have the T&L implemented yet.

No matter what since non of it is in a reasonable amout we can't use it yet and specially not as an argument for not being able to bench. Tom and all the other zites have more or less come up with the same results...so perhaps all of them are biased...NOT!!!.

Use your common sense my friend...and read a bit more reviews before you start bashing and throwing stupid statements off your chest...

AoD :wink:

AoD ;) 

<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/angelofdeathdk/index.html" target="_new">Me :eek:  </A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by AngelOfDeath on 11/23/00 01:36 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2000 10:23:27 PM

You're full of it. It's very obvious that you are the one with bias not only against AMD but against Tom as well. "I'm the one who would punch your lights out."

Woah!! Sounds like you're emotionally distraught about this and not thinking straight.

Tom calls it like it is. I've been reading his column for a long time and he has always called it like it is. If Pentium has the better product, he says so. If AMD has the better product he says so. If Cyrix (unlikely as it is) has the better product, he would say so also. Facts are facts. All Tom does is analyze them and enlighten those of us who don't have the time to do all of the exhaustive tests that Tom runs to find out which is the better product and then passes the info on to us.

If you have any particular benchmark you would like to run I'm sure Tom would consider it if you sent him a formal request... formal meaning you should ask without threatening to "Punch his lights out" of course.

Go ahead and throw your money at the new "and Improved" Pentium 4 like the rest of the lemmings and leave the other intelligent people like Tom alone.

O_Poderoso.
November 22, 2000 10:24:27 PM

I see how Tom creates an article every time he finds a stat where AMD beats Intel.
I see were Tom takes every opertunity to bash Intel.

Tom not biased? I know your smoking crack.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2000 10:30:39 PM

I think you should stop now while you can...As I said if it was possible for you to move that 10 year old @ss of yours to other hardware-zitez then you might experience the same conclusions as in Tom's review.

AoD :wink:

<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/angelofdeathdk/index.html" target="_new">Me :eek:  </A>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2000 10:34:33 PM

"Tom is struggling hard to find stuff that the P4 loses at because our sample excels at everything we have thrown at it (hardware and software)."
Can I assume the reference to ' our sample' in your last post means you are an Intel employee or was it a Freudian slip?
November 22, 2000 11:05:40 PM

Untill you actually ran both and know wtf your talking about, I would suggest you STFU because your BS that you love to spread only gets worse as more people refilter your BS into something even worse.

Until you see more bandwith intensive applications run on the P4 dont talk [-peep-] about what you dont know.

P4 has awesome bandwidth. he who moves more data faster wins.

I would love to send tom a demo copy of postershop 5.0 Pro to bench with, He would begin to see the true potential of the P4 in real professional applications and possibly add new types of tests. because I dont give a flying [-peep-] about MS word performance, nor do I care about Q3.

Speaking of AMD fuckups, how about when the glue was not centered on the core and the core would crack when a heatsink was applied. Or the non existant logic in the core to shut the CPU down if a tempeture threshhold was reached. Too much incompatable hardware, unless it says its AMD/Athlon ready your taking your chances. Anomolies are ok as long as your CPU doesnt lockup is the AMD way of life.

I dont see the P4 going to the home users as much as the professional industry (graphics, service beauros, CADD, engineering, modeling, etc..)

Ok, so you cannot afford it. new technology was never cheap.
November 22, 2000 11:13:34 PM

Engineering sample, Intel authorized developer. Thanks for noticing.

I work for SGI. (you ever wonder why SGI doesn't build a AMD based machine... hahahaha we know better)

Thats also why I speak of bandwidth =)

Pro-engineer is exceptional on P4 for those that care.
November 22, 2000 11:18:52 PM

Happy thanksgiving everyone, my day is done and I hope tom reads his forums. You girls can fight it out over who is better.

I believe we all have different needs from our machines, If you based your car buying decisions on ford/chevy fights everyone would own a dodge

Tom is biased

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by FUGGER on 11/22/00 08:19 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2000 11:19:23 PM

I agree with divemaster this person is obviously biased tword *ntel(and possibly an *ntel employee).

As far as AMD paying tom for a poor P4 review, well, NO!. It could happen, anything is possible, but I doubt AMD has enough money in its coffers to pay off all the Hardware sites.

I am biased, I like AMD mainly because of how they treat their employees. I like to support company's that treat their employees with respect not halfwit lemmings.

If he/she is a *ntel employee he/she must be upset due to:
1.)poor *ntel stock performance or
2.)the fact that the halfwitt lemmings(he/she being one of them) supported a memory technology that is in my opinion crap.
3.)he/she did not listen to the intelligent intel employees(there are some left) and was proven wrong by them(Rambus vs. ddr).

So cut this person a break he/she has had a rough 9 months and will probably be layed off early 2002 as the hammer family takes another 20 % market share from *ntel.

"in the end it's all about holding your breath"
November 22, 2000 11:26:14 PM

On the current market the Athlon procesor is the BEST you can buy for your money period. It has a better raw FPU and it is clock per clock faster and better then any current Intel procesor. Intel recently lost me as a customer of many years cause of the poor performance/price ratio. Furthermore though you might be right that nothing is currently p4 optimized you certainly must see that it will take alot of time for this to happend if it ever will..

Development costs of companies might make them think twice on just putting out new software so it will be P4 optimized. Unless the p4 becomes mainstream and even you dont see this happening in the near future.

And by the time software if ever comes fully P4 optimized AMD will gain enough market share for it to be even a bigger threat then it is now and thus companies will see this as well and develope on par for AMD.

Im not saying the P4 sucks... though it may seem like this on paper, but i am saying that a market is not won solely on Mhz..

We will see what the future brings and i bet that the only people that will truely benefit from this war will be the consumers.


Why do I use LINUX ? Cause its the BEST OS
Why do I use Windows? Cause its the BEST Nintendo..
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2000 12:48:35 AM

Fugger,
It is refreshing to observe someone with your command of the English language. You seem to be a real rocket scientist when it comes to being able to express yourself. I would guess that within your workgroup you are not considered to be one of the sharpest marbles in the bag.
As far as someone noticing something about you ... Intel authorized developer. Thanks for noticing. I work for SGI ... what is really noticable is you extremely poor ability to write and express yourself. What I will remember most from your post is the quality of people working for SGI.
As far as bias you are so biased that you cannot see past your nose.

Regards,
Chas
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2000 1:10:00 AM

What good is bandwidth when you don't have the processing power to go behind it? And the P4 lacks processing power at 1.5 ghz. I can only give you the thousand benchmarks which are out there as proof of my words: face it, Quake3 is the only game/benchmark hungry enough for bandwidth to show some real gain at the current P4 speed.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2000 2:28:15 AM

Oh gee, you just have to drag Pro/E into this? As far as I know the current 2000i2 version of it is still very much non-SSE ,so it all comes down to TONS of RAM (yeah and try to get 1GB+ of RDRAM for your beloved P4) and RAW FPU POWER to do good in Pro/E. PIII (and Athlon?) platform still gurantees a lower cost seat that outperforms the P4 all the way.

Yeah right my behind you are a SGI employee...oh btw may be SGI is in a big financial hole for a reason...hehehe ;) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2000 3:32:27 AM

<i>because I dont give a flying -peep- about MS word performance, nor do I care about Q3. </i>

Oh, and of course *YOU* determine what apps everybody on the planet runs, huh? Find me 1 person who runs "postershop", and I'll find you 50 who run Q3, and 1000 who run MS Office. So get your head out of the sand.

<i>he who moves more data faster wins</i>

Really? Run your old PPro w/ PC800 RDRAM and come tell me about how 'l33t' your processor is. Also note that Tom uses the same damn benchmark software for almost everything-- if you look into the archives, you'll see PII smoking K6/2, etc. It's not the apps, it's the processor.

<i>Ok, so you cannot afford it. </i>

/me imagines FUGGER shooting himself in foot.
Do I really need to say anything else?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2000 3:42:45 AM

What has AMD not beaten Intel at in the past few months? The PIII did get better scores in games and certain apps that are very intensive on the cache, but the Athlon whupped up in everything else, including price. The Celeron 2 was a dud, and to the best of my recollection, there is NOTHING that the Duron lost to the Celeron 2 in.

Please, before making stupid accusations about Tom's integrity, post a few links to back yourself up.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2000 3:51:37 AM

"P4 has awesome bandwidth. he who moves more data faster wins."

Not necessarily. Many apps used for office workstations need kick-ass integer performance. As Tom's benchamrks (I think Anand ran some benchmarks from ZD as well, and got similar results) show, P4 integer performance is horrible! FPU-intensive apps, such as 3DSMax, easily go to the Athlon, even the old ones that had even worse cache! Gaming performance - Nothing but Quake 3 benefits from the 400MHz FSB, and just look at Unreal Tournament results!

"...I dont give a flying [-peep-] about MS word performance, nor do I care about Q3."

Too bad, since many people do.

"Ok, so you cannot afford it. new technology was never cheap."

It was never this expensive either. Just check pricewatch.com. You could practically assemble a whole Athlon-based system for the cost of a single P4.

The only uses for the P4 is some OpenGL graphics apps, and network servers thanks to the cache.
November 23, 2000 4:25:16 AM

You work for SGI? Doing what I ask? Janitor perhaps? Give us all a break for we are not impressed. Show us the facts or are you having a little trouble coming up with some? A processor is only as good as its weakest link and the p4 has a big one ie. the casterated FPU. SSE2? Who cares? What will it do for me know? Nodda, zip, nothing. Has AMD made mistakes? Sure they have, no denyig that one. But hey, why dont you go get a recalled 820 mobo running a p-3 1.13 gig CPU? I think it is what you truly deserve. Couple that with some outrageously priced RAMBUS with your precious bandwith. You you can move a lot of data really fast until, heaven forbid you have to turn the corner. We will watch you go straight over the cliff with your high latency while we turn the corner with ease.
November 23, 2000 6:07:04 AM

Ohh my god.. Hmm well I never had much respect for SGI, never made anything impressive. Though it must be stated that some of their platforms which is priced for gods and price/performance ratio sucks, is quite nice. I've had a few friends that's been working with professional graphics, and mp is the way to go. And I just can't wait to see what happens when the 760mp comes. I wonder if SGI still will only make intel based systems. One may wonder if Intel hasn't been smart enough to do contracts with large PC
producers, which is perhaps why SGI makes medicore systems at insane prices. Sorry never wanted an SGI, except the cases.. ohh they're nice.. BTW what do U need to make impressive 3D representations ? Well if I would like to have some Raytracing fx, well I guess hmm FPU preformance doesn't count in SGI puters? Ohh well SGI can make 1 thing. And 1 thing only: GraphicsCard. The rest they suck at.

Hmm well ok, I loved Intel bfr their price politics when wacko. I have no choice.. I get an athlon 1.2 for the same price as an intel 1.0.. why should I buy the intel ?

-Hasse
November 23, 2000 10:52:38 AM

FUGGER

"How soon Tom forgets that everything is built to Intel spec and AMD would be nothing if it were not for Intels advancements in CPU technology. Intel is not in the business to make a AMD compatable CPU."

We all know Intel invented the X86 architecture. Why should that matter to anyone in a discussion about the P4 performance?

"P4 is a new micro architecture, nothing is optimized for it yet (or at least the stuff that is being used to benchmark it)."

It is true nothing is currently optimised for it. Do you know how much of a performance jump such optimisation will give across the board or are you making an assumption? Yes Intel's marketing ability will coerce companies into optimising for the P4. It will be interesting to find out how much of an effect it will have.

"Everything that P4 wins at is obviously left out of the article. Tom is struggling hard to find stuff that the P4 loses at because our sample excels at everything we have thrown at it (hardware and software)."

Most other sites show the same results. If a program is not used for benchmarking perhaps it is because it is not popular enough to matter to most people. You seem also to know that Tom is trying to find benches that make the P4 look bad. Again is this an assumption? Perhaps you don't like the results? Do you feel the results would be more useful or fair if it only included programs with high bandwidth requirements such as those you use?

"Lets start a list of hardware that doesnt run on AMD!
That would be a long fucken list."

Again this adds nothing to the debate about P4 performance but does tell us a bit about why you have the views you do.

"I wonder how much AMD has paid Tom for his [-peep-] up articles where he only posts negative about intel every chance he gets."

I believe that *all* of the points that you have raised about high bandwidth, future optimisations etc were discussed in the article, Tom just came to a different conclusion. Why does that upset you so much?

"Tom, I hope your CPU fan dies.
BTW I was looking for you at comdex. I would have been the guy who puched your lights out explaining AMD made me do it.

Its sad that I used to like this site back when celeron overclocking was the bomb. Now Tom can't do a article without bashing Intel."

Are you telling us you liked Tom when he said good things about Intel but now he doesn't you are upset? Is your self worth so tied up with a CPU manufacturer that you have to defend it to the point of childishness?

Leonov
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2000 12:16:19 PM

I really can't understand where you are coming from on this one. AMD fanaticism makes me want to vomit just as much as Intel fanaticism, and a lot of this smacks of the childish "debates" by teenyboppers arguing the merits of PS vs Sega vs N64 or whatever.

The point really is that AMD back in the days of base Pentiums had an FPU that sucked the big one. Since then they have improved a tad and most if not all independent reviewers would agree that the Athlon core FPU annihilates Intel's offerings.

Intel's arrogance over the upcoming AMD CPUs demonstrates the typical attitudes of large corporations enjoying huge market dominance, and they utterly failed to react to the situation until it was way too late. Remind anyone of Microsoft ?

I totally applaud AMD for really getting their act together and producing a first rate set of CPUs at an excellent price. Intel dropped the ball and are still fumbling around trying to pick it back up.

The ultimate winners will be the consumers - anyone think Intel would slash their CPU prices if AMD hadn't forced them to do so via market pressures ? We will all benefit from this competition.

As for the reliability of Tom's Hardware, I personally don't know anyone who would argue his findings, and I would be very surprised if there was anyone out there who could do a better job of laying out the facts so that the rest of us can just go buy the right kit at the right price without getting stung by marketing hype.

Things might be built to Intel spec, but for the moment at least, AMD seem to be doing a better job of "Intel Spec" CPUs than Intel themselves.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2000 12:25:03 PM

You poor, troubled soul. My prayers and good wishes go out to you and your small closed mind. Some day you will see the light, I only hope its after the truck hits you!

Take Care.
If money was no object, how could you spend it!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2000 1:36:23 PM

Is your purpose in your anonynimity here to send insulting comments and abuse to Tom indirectly?

Show some responsibility, maturity and see all the other hardware reviews reaching the same conclusions.

The main point is that no one is slamming the P4 into the dirt for all time. Every review I've read so far has stated in some form that these are merely first impressions and that this new architecture could well lead the way forward for Intel and they will be watching its progress.

Obviously the P4 hasn't gotten off to a good start in pleasing Mr Pabst but if the P4 is as wonderful a creation as you think it is then it shouldn't have any trouble earning his support in the future.

By all means express your opinions, that's what this forum is here for but I would suggest that you could try a different approach rather than continuing your rude nature stirring up a hornets nest.

If you can't read even as well as you write the art known as English then let me put it simply for you..grow up and know that you're not going to find a note on our good friend Tom's website saying "Intel has released its P4..it looks cool but I'm not going to benchmark it yet because they say its optimised for SSE2"
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2000 5:31:12 PM

I should admit, I am "Tomshardware" reader for the past 3 1/2 years. I never seen Dr. Tom so gentle in his tone when criticizing in a review.

I should admit that the tone Dr. Tom is using in the recent 2 or 3 reviews has totally changed.

Try comparing the tone that Dr. Tom use in the P3 1.13 Ghz review and the recent review of P4. I am about to say ... what's wrong to Dr. Tom in the recent review? He sounds so gentle... even on the RAMBUS issues !!

If you think Toms hardware try at every chance to criticize intel. Let me remind you about the K6-3 review.

The benchmark Dr. Tom ran is the common program that everyone use, unless you can suggest a better benchmark.
If P4 cannot perform well enough in these benchmark, it is really not going to perform well in the real life situation.

The benchmark results really speak of itself. When MMX-idct is enabled... P4 perform very well in DVD encoding.. When switching to Floating point, it peforms very badly.... it is up to you to intepret either you should praise Intel for its good design which boost the performance in MMX encoding or you should criticize Intel on its poor FPU design.. I would choose the second...
November 23, 2000 6:04:08 PM

You have all gone crazy. Of all the reviews I have read in recent years Tom's
have been far the best and honest. The P4 still has a poor FPU and that is important at moment, no mater what you say
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2000 7:09:58 PM

I have been reading toms hardware for a few years now, and his reviews have always been all about facts. when something was questionable he would say it was, whether it was a benchmark he was running or a product that wasnt living up to the hype. I have been and always will be a loyal reader of toms. he always tells it like it is, and i respect that. if you are so upset, then dont visit this site and visit a site that has nothing but praise for P4, which will probably be only one site, intel's. i say good riddance to bad rubbish, namely you and P4, however if P4 can make things right, i would welcome it back, but i cant say the same for YOU! go get a life. sincerely, Allanon65
November 23, 2000 9:46:12 PM

Opinion based on fact is not a bias . Tom is not the only 1 reporting that the pentium 4 is a waste of good money . Even C|net and SE's gave it a bad review . And if there isnt bias at those sites slanted toward P4 then i dont know where you would find bias! He even used test slanted more toward Intel than amd . Since most computer stores dont let you bring software into the store and test drive the system it is up to sites like Toms to keep people informed . I myself believe he does a good job of it . Never by a product because you have some emotional attachment to it it is just minerals fashioned into a product you use . Being informed is the best way to make a good choice .

If the fat lady's singing at least shes losing weight.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2000 9:57:17 PM

Allanon65,

I don't know if it's a mistake or not, but since your are responding to my post, I feel like I have to make some things clear: I do not think Tom has bias and I was only answering to FUGGER's comments.

Please feel free to ask any other questions.

Seoman. Newbie at last!
November 23, 2000 11:32:46 PM

Biased? I don't think so.
Self Centered? Most definately (aren't we all).
Opionated? No more than me.
Journalist? Oh yeah.
Sensationalist? You betcha :) 
Technologiest? Don't make me laugh.

Face it, the P4 is *NOT* a processor for today. It runs existing applications poorly. The only applications it does a good job at are those which have been recompiled with a P4 enabled compiler. Compare it to ANY other processor running antequated applications that do not understand the P4 and of course it will do poorly.

How many page hits is Tom gonna get by suggesting that the P4 is a sleeper? How many is he gonna get by claiming it is a looser? How many is he gonna loose next year by being wrong today? The answer to those questions explain his actions oh so clearly.

Tom seems to call it like he sees it. I respect him for that. I see no bias in his reports, only the short sightedness typical of his industry.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2000 12:05:23 AM

Why does Tom have to judge AMD based on the fact that it has to make an x86 based CPU? Where does this factor in? Should all car makers other than Ford be downgraded because they owe it to Ford for inventing cars?

That's not logical. And as for Tom being biased, how come virtually every other website has either had lukewarm at best, or negative views on the P4 as well. And how come for the first time in Intel's history, their stock went DOWN on the day of a new processors release??

So far, one thing has been common in every review I've seen. And that's that the P4 has POTENTIAL. Even Tom said that in the future, the P4 could become very serious competition to AMD. But EVERY review I've seen has said to hold off on the .18 P4. And every review has said that when Intel can ramp up speed, and it gets a DDR DRAM chipset, then it will definitely look better.

So Tom's not alone in his "bashing" of the P4. Personally, I think it's ironic that the people who bashed AMD for having excellent integer performance but crappy floating performance, are now flocking to Intel's defense. Also, I think there's no excuse for the P4's mediocre performance. With the amount of time that Intel has put into it, and the resources they have, this is unpardonable. And when the K7 came out, at least it had respectable scores across all apps. Not excellent in some and horrible in others.

So you say you want to give more time for the P4? No one gave that luxury to the Athlon when it first came out, so you can't accuse Tom of being biased in that sense either. If you like the P4 so much, go out and buy one. Support who you believe in. If you think all the reviewers are nuts and stupid, then don't read web reviews. Remember you can always pick out a benchmark to make a processor or platform look good. The bottomline however is what people want their computers for...not benchmarks.

And as for punching someone out, why does this upset you so much? Have you invested in Intel stock? And I saw your later post about Tom using an engineering sample. Please dude, unless you have proof of this, don't say something you don't know. I'm pretty certain all the review sites used the same latest stepping CPU that is out for sale right now.

You remind me of a guy back in the delphi forum....bitemeoff. Any relation??
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2000 12:33:03 AM

None of us has gone crazy infact. Only the poster which seems not satisfied with the way Toms commented on P4.

Anyway, I think the benchmark have spoken for itself. If P4 can't shine on these benchmark, chances are, it won't shine on real situation.

I would say Toms is biased IF he only run Quake3 -- which makes P4 looks so good. I would say Toms is biased IF he only run 3d Studio which makes P4 looks like a piece of [-peep-].. but now he ran all the common benchmark test... there is no reason to accuse him of being biased. The benchmark results really speak out themselves that the current P4 will not perform well in today's application. The fact might change when more and more SSE2 application become available.... but that is still an uncertainty. It might, it might not.
November 24, 2000 12:41:36 AM

I feel Tom is biased towards AMD because he takes every chance he can to put down the p4 (I admit some is factual, but some comments are unnecessary), but who cares. Lots of people like to root for the underdog. Who wouldn't want to root for a small company that out performs a large company. It's like a good movie or something. Actually I think everyone should quit riding AMD's nuts. Just because you use the processor doesn't mean you are better than anyone else. In time I feel intel will pull ahead and prove itself the best processor on the market. See I am biased towards intel, but don't have to result to petty childish arguing to say I like them better. Also who cares if you were the first to use the AMD .... I don't....I bet nobody does either.
November 24, 2000 1:36:26 AM

Dont know where U are but in the UK I have just read a review in ((PC Pro magazine (UK))for 2 Diff P4 systems, Dell & Compaq 1.4 & 1.5 Ghz processors... they were both beaten by Athlon 1Ghz & 1.2Ghz systems (Mesh & Panrix, UK systems companies)

Were cookin' now... whoops...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2000 1:59:14 AM

Flugger stop huff'n gold paint from a lunch bag and calm down, you'll stroke out if you're not careful. Sorry Toms not bias against the p4, just the most honest. Maybe the P4 verII, will be a better proc but right now is a brain dead buy. The only bench mark it beat Amd 1.2 gig T brid is Quake3!!!!!!!!!!! In real world apps, a overclocked PIII700e at 933 or PIII 1.0Gig is a better buy for Inhell Nazi's like you. Look at the bench mark for real world apps not the intel pr dept designed bench mark. In a year, the P4 with it new mobo platform, without rdram maybe be the hot setup, BUT NOT TODAY!!!!!!!!!! If you really want to show your true Inhell, sorry Intel support and have about 3500.00 usd to flush, run out and buy a p4 system, I doubt you would, unless your a moron. Its just like the orginal PIII came out with the off chip 512 cache, UNTIL the advent of the PIII coppermines the fastest cpu intel made was the 500 celron (the proof was even on intel's web site although you had to dig for it). Once PIII design was change to mostly to improve fpu and 256k full speed cache and some additional tweaks it truely became a great cpu. Get off the bias crap, Your acting like a Kid who just found out Santa doesnt pay for christmas gifts , Get a life, If not lay down in a dark room and take whole bottle tylenol and the world will be a nicer place if dont you get up the next mornimg.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2000 2:08:10 AM

You are not serious about the tylenol thing are you?
I hope so anyway.

Seoman. Newbie at last!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2000 7:56:05 AM

i wonder if you are taking that original post a bit too seriously. More than it deserves but perhaps as the author expected.

anyway to continue the discussion without deliberate goading.
I would not say that tom is biased (and anyway he said the chipset was good didn't he) but i would say his rants tend to be a bit childish. Look at the change after the 1 extra benchmark (which really wasn't all that important in the first place), it was completely out of proportion.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2000 8:30:42 AM

Hey, Didn't you see that anandtech and all other hardware sites did the same analysis? P4 is a dog, period.
The P4 technology may be intersting in 6 month, or 12, or 18. Right now you may forget it.
It's in the same kind o' situation PPro was back in 96, with a very big difference : at this time, PPro was really faster for 32 bit apps than anything else. P4 isn't even faster than Athlon for anything, and it's 4 times the price!
Now, please stop trolling, OK?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2000 8:34:50 AM

regarding SGI and AMD, better not to comment.
For anything else, well... Octane2 is really cool. 230 really sucks.
I'm pretty sure ProEngineer (or CATIA, or whatever) runs smoother on R12K than P4 anyway.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2000 8:51:34 AM

Oh, I don't know - all this trolling by slavering Intel fanatics makes me smile....

===
Do unto others before they do unto you...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2000 9:29:24 AM

Hello?

Tom always have taken AMD's side.

It is the way of Tom and will be.

Tom's hardware is up to AMD fans.

Bye...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2000 9:49:25 AM

If Tom is always Pro AMD, according to you, why don't you read the original AMD reviews back in the Pentium days ?

===
Do unto others before they do unto you...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2000 9:56:30 AM

Hello?

Oh...I became to know Tomshardware after that days. :) 

Bye...

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by csharp on 11/24/00 07:49 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2000 10:18:29 AM

1. List of incompatable hardware with AMD....

None (Well i740 didnt like non Intel chipsets - but hey - Thats INTEL!!!)

2. Only Intel who produces new architecture????

Pentium core up to P111 is the OLDEST most OUTDATED architecture on the planet still widely used... K7 was the FIRST new architecture, and erherm P4 is intels reply... a bit late???!

3. You're an ignorant foul mouthed ass.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2000 10:18:48 AM

Then you surley can't comment on the way it has always been??

M

one of the first UK T-Bird users....
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2000 10:21:23 AM

Just don't get what you mean by hardware incompatibility. If cracking an AMD is easier than a PIII, then AMD is less compatibility?

First, it is not hardware incompatibility.
Second, Tom mentioned it, mentions it, and is going to mention it, in a LOUD way - Just if you read his reviews.
Tom, and the true readers, can you confirm it with me.

Now, back to the incompatibility issue. I agree that Athlon will not run on a long list of hardware, says all the LX, EX, ZX, BX based mainboard, VIA Appolo based mainboard, i810, i820, i840, i815, i850 based mainboard, Athlon does not run with RDRAM, etc., etc., etc., etc.

Now you get what incompatibility means. I will let you complete the list (don't forget all the 286, 386 and 486 mainboards)

Besides the mainboard, can you tell me what cannot work with Athlon?

Hey all the guys, who are neither AMD's nor Intel's fanatic, are you with me?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2000 10:25:45 AM

I consider Tom as a fair reviewer, for the P4. At least he is fairer compared to the guys at CNET.COM

Have you read the review at CNET.COM? Needless to say, they praise the P4 up to sky, or even to the moon. But they are unfair, ironically.

How unfair were they? They compared the best Intel baby: P4 1.5GHz against AMD - not so good boy: Athlon 1 GHz. I say again: Athlon ONE GIGAHERTZ.

And conclude that P4 is the fastest x86 CPU.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2000 10:30:28 AM

Simply because as soon as AMD's Athlon saw the light, Intel has not been able to catch up. Don't you get it?

Now, if you look at how Tom has praising the Celerons, you may think again. But I guess that you guys at SGI are not using Celerons.

Celerons had always been the winners until Duron came along.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2000 10:31:49 AM

The Athlon Classic has a problem with the irongate north bridge and the Geforce Graphics card , but then the pentium's running the ALI chipset have problems with the TNT2 chipset and AGP Port...

Both bits of info I found on toms hardware......

and yes I am with you ... there will always be combinations of hardware that will not run together ,choose the kit you want on it's merit NOT it's badge...

M

one of the first UK T-Bird users....
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!