Computers Reviewed In Comsumer Reports

The March issue of Consumer Reports has a section rating different brands of computers. Dell, Gateway, eMachines, HP, Compaq, and so on. Athlons and P3's lumped into one review.

Well, you know how picky CR is. They find fault with everything. How one brand of peanut butter is too grainy, another too smooth.

But when they reviewed the mixed bag of Athlon and P3 computers, they made no differenciation between the two brands of processors! Not once was it mentioned that the Athlon does not have thermal protection. No where did CR complain about incompatibility. In fact, the brand of processor was so insignificant that it was never mentioned in the text of the article, only in the specs for that particular PC. Why, they even made it sound like you couldn't tell which processor was in which box.

Consumer Reports seems to think that there is no operational difference between the two processors.

I wonder how all of the AMD incompatibilites and heat issues were able to escape the fine eyes of Consumer Reports? Not a single AMD system fried during their tests.

Of course, reliability charts were present. But not by processor, but by Computer brand. Again, no differenciation between AMD and Intel.

Let the flames begin.....
11 answers Last reply
More about computers reviewed comsumer reports
  1. Biased... totally biased...

    Please visit <b><A HREF="" target="_new"></A></b>
  2. I'm not sure they know what an athlon or a p3/p4 is!

    <i><b><font color=red>"2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2"</font color=red></b></i>
  3. its obvious here that they were bought out by cyrix

    AND they sold their souls to satan, (or is that rock n roll??)

    AND they eat babies


    AMD. It gets you chicks.
  4. There seems to be a consensus today that the athlon/duron has no compatability problems. Can you give examples? Sounds like you're talking about VIA maybe...or the old AMD cpu's

    <font color=red>This is a forum, not a chat room. You aren't going to find a date here.</font color=red>
  5. Unless you improperly install the HSF, it will burn up how?

    -- Being the devil's advocate :)

    <font color=red>This is a forum, not a chat room. You aren't going to find a date here.</font color=red>
  6. Dhlucke,

    You misunderstand.

    I meant to infer that IF all of these heat problems and incompatibilities exist with AMD systems, how could they escape the eagle eye of Consumer Reports? They didn't. There are no heat problems (unless the HSF is not install properly).

    If there were any issues with AMD systems, Consumer Reports would have been all over them with their first report of an Athlon machine.

    It appears that Consumer Reports sees no difference between an AMD or Intel based PC. Regardless of the chip used, it is still just a PC. No more, no less. One is no better then the other (only less expensive).
  7. Basicaly, because Consumer Reports is witten by idiots for idiots. I remember about 15 years ago I read a review by them on childrens bicycles. The top BMX bike lost because it had handbrakes and a crossbar. The winner was a cheap girls bike that had no crossbar and coaster brakes. They stated that the crossbar was a head injury danger, failing to realize that in hardcore riding (which boys are likely to do) it was necessary for the strength of the handlebars! Because of this Huffy temporarily droped crossbars from their boys bikes, and the handlebars stated colapsing. Now they use them again, puting proven functionality over perceived saftey (broken handlebars are bad for business).
    You don't need to worry about things like heat protection and compatability in a basic system that basic people use. I sell Pentium 166's refurbished and have the same type of clientell as Consumer Reports caters to. These people find the performance remarkable! So if a P166 is remarkable, anything better would be superb by their standards. Consumer reports does not try upgrades or overclocking or anything the typical user doesn't do. And all the OEM's can spend man WEEKS (many man hours) making a system stable, because once they get it there, they simply copy the eintire effort 10,000 times.
    Oh, and wasn't it Consumer Reports that initially published Nader's findings on the Corvair?

    Suicide is painless...........
  8. I'll second that Crashman.
    Consumer Reports may write useful reviews on home appliances and frozen vegatables, but they're useless for much beyond that.

    The one I like was many years ago they reviewed bicycles. Can't remember if it was mountain bikes or road bikes. In any case, they slammed one brand because the front brakes were to "grabby" and risked throwing the rider over the handlebars. The thing is, this bike used an identical brake system to that used on several other bikes in the review (none of which was criticized on this point).

    any excessive "grabbiness" of the brakes could have been fixed by a competent mechanic, and was a function of the final assembly & adjustment (which is done by the dealer, not the manufacturer). And finally, though I don't remember the details, their overall test methodology and rating system sucked. It was obvious that none of the people involved had ridden a bike since elementary school.

    So, take any reviews from CR with a grain of salt.

    Sorry for the long, off-topic post.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
    In practice, there is.
  9. CR caters to the average american. And the average american is not a rocket scientist. Obviously you will not get a tech geek review in CR. That's not what they write about at all... My parents could care less about the cache or the FPU or anything besides "does it work good".

    -"Make it go now"

    <font color=red>This is a forum, not a chat room. You aren't going to find a date here.</font color=red>
  10. In electronics Consumer reports measure of goodness is bells and whistles. The more nobs and features, accoding to CR, the higher the quality. I came to this observation from looking at reviews of stereo equipment. Poor quality is still poor quality no matter how it is dressed up.
  11. sounds to me like they are just telling people what they want to hear. oh well, if theyre making money then good for them. you dont have to read it


    AMD. It gets you chicks.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Computers Processors