Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Anandtech's and THG's 2GHz Reviews: Differences?

Last response: in CPUs
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2001 1:47:58 AM

Hmmm, I just finsihed reading Tom's 2GHz review, I had read Anand's eariler and now I am very confused. I am at a loss at why the numbers are so different compared to each other's. I see 3 major differences, in video card, video drivers, and Motherboards.

Anand used SiS 735 based K7S5A, Tom used MSI K7 Master. In P4 Mobo's, Tom used Intel's refrence 850 S478 mobo, Anand used Abit Th7II-RAID. Anand used GeForce3, Tom used GeForce2 Ultra. Finally, Anand used Detonator3, but Tom used Detonator4, but that doesn't matter much because Tom wasn't using a GeForce3.

According to Tom, Athlon 1.4 gets beat in SYSMark 2001 Offfice Apps, that doesn't seem possible, it's not the Athlon's low score that I'm confused at (It's 8% slower, right around the diff between 760 and SiS 735), but what I cannot understand is how Intels' refrence 850 board beat Abit TH7II-RAID by 10%.

Q3A no suprises, but another one is AquaMark. I'm gonna quote Tom

<< The new game AquaNox is already equipped with P4-enhancements, so that Athlon does not stand much of a chance. >>

Ok, now from Tom's view it's no suprise that P4 beats Athlon 1.4 by 3 fps, but what I still cannot understand how does he get that while Anand see's First not only the A 1.4, but the MP 1.2 beat the 2GHz. Did the GF3 that Anand use make this big of a difference?

Finally, CINEMA 4D Raytracing Anand and Tom are about the same, but in iDCT Flask according to Anand the SSE2 algorithm, now despite Anand's was a 352 x 288 video and Tom's was 720x576 still would a resoultion increase help the P4 so much and hurt the Athlon?

The bottom line is that I think this is pretty fishy. I'm not trying to start a flame war it just seems odd that there would be these differences in 3 such crucial Benchmarks. What are your thought's?
August 28, 2001 2:17:34 AM

Is not the 1 time that happen if you want my idea get toms as reference and anadtech intro.

Flame coming.
August 28, 2001 9:45:09 AM

I hava to agree with you. Fishy is an understatement.. I really dont like the fact that there is a huge add of Intel in the front of Toms page the same day he publishes his article... I have followed Tom for years now and this is the first it smells this fishy...
BTW i would have liked Tom to at least include the Linux benchmarks he said he would start including..


Why do I use LINUX ? Cause its the BEST OS
Why do I use Windows? Cause its the BEST Nintendo..
Related resources
August 28, 2001 3:57:41 PM

Most likely do to the fact that i wrote my message at 5am i would like to add that if the P4 2gig is faster then any current Athlon then good, as it will make AMD come out with something better and so on. So the only one who benefits is us :) 


Why do I use LINUX ? Cause its the BEST OS
Why do I use Windows? Cause its the BEST Nintendo..
August 28, 2001 4:27:10 PM

u do know that tom is paid by amd right?
August 28, 2001 4:49:24 PM

you are full of sh!t afaik those ads are pushed by doubleclick, afaik! and even if he did put up Intel ads, wtf is wrong with that, huh?

did you think you were at who the f**k are you to question a hardware review site on their ad policies? if you don't like to see Intel ads amongst Amd ads then get lost chump.

I support THG regardless if Intel lost some, won some who cares, f u and Chris tom, Van Smith, Bert and all the lunatics that are supposedly running "hardware review site" yeah right!

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b> are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
August 28, 2001 4:52:24 PM

Toms get paid by the companys which advertise on his website right???
Looks who his biggest advertiser.
Plus I find it strange that Tom Says Amd Athlon4 isn't competition for the p4 2000 when The athlon4 seems to hold it own at a 1.4 g to 2 g disadvantage.
The Athlon wins it share of benchmarks even with this big clock difference. Maybe we should benchmark the p4 at 1g and the Athlon at 1.6 and see who wins most of the benchmarks.
August 28, 2001 7:01:38 PM

I didn't think the athlon 4's were out yet. News to me.

:cool: <b>Change the sig of the week!</b> :cool:
Don't fake the funk on a nasty dunk!!
August 28, 2001 7:10:54 PM

u do know that tom is paid by amd right?

Don't you realize that was stupid question when Tom has a big <b>Intel's</b> ad on his site?

:smile: Good or Bad have no meaning at all, depends on what your point of view is.
August 28, 2001 7:21:14 PM

I should not even respond to such an moron as yourself.. But i am doing it just to let you know that i have EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD to complaint and have my view heard. Hell i have followed Tom since so the start. And it does sound screwd up that you publish a review and at the same time get the add from Intel all over your page. I am sure your little dumb ass transvestite brain wont understand it so just go sit down and blow on some ass moron as yourself and shut the hell up!

PS: I normally skip your stupid post since they are full of lame ass sh*t from someone that does not know jack about what he is talking about LOL.


Why do I use LINUX ? Cause its the BEST OS
Why do I use Windows? Cause its the BEST Nintendo..
August 28, 2001 7:23:15 PM

Maybe I am just pragmatic or something, but I could care less if the review benches differ on each site. I could even care less that Intel has big splashy ads right on the pages with Tom's P4 2ghz review.



I read at least 3 or 4 different reviews at different sites to get a broader picture of any products. To be honest, I don't think Tom intentionally skewed any results AND the main thing for me is he was prettymuch on target in his final words. P4 has *finally* met or exceeded the Athlon 1.4 in most benches. All the reviews generally say that AMD will retake the speed crown with the Athlon 4 coming soon.

So what can we take away from the reviews? P4 2ghz is fine but for price/performance, Athlon 1.4 is still the best PC CPU out there.


When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2001 1:17:48 AM

I never thought Tom cheated to make one or the other look better. I just was posting what I thought. I can see that I managed to start a flame war though.
August 29, 2001 1:26:31 AM

looks like a flame war.
bit sad really.

if you really want honest discussion about computer related stuff i suggest you give the CPU page a miss and go to some other similar page,
e.g. mobo's or cpu overclocking.

i find much the same topics get covered with minimal morons.
strange that trolls all congregate in one area.

I'll respect your comments & opinions, even if i disagree with them, Provided you display maturity.
August 29, 2001 1:51:23 AM

Did I somehow flame someone?

I didn't think I did. I try to be as civil as possible when I post to avoid getting embroiled in flaming.


When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
August 29, 2001 11:20:38 AM

As much as I like reviews. I much prefer to see comparative benchmarks that are rated by clock and not performance. We had these discrepancies back in the day when CYRIX tried to tell us that their CPU'S were quicker than INTEL equivalents due to less cycles required to perform given tasks.

Given that AMD are not at these speed grades the community have chosen to move the post by relegating this practice null and void and adopted the INTEL MHZ no's game.

They questioned whether or not ATHLON was true 7th generation CPU when performance was only slightly bettter than PIII but are mute in their condemnation of PIV because it ramps higher than ATHLON.

AMD wouldn't get such favorable reviews if ATHLON had been trounced by K6II/K6III in any benchmark far less PIII on SDR showing up PIV on RAMBUS.

Although close in performance terms 1.4 ghz ATHLON+DDR does not equal 2 ghz PIV+RAMBUS in price vs performance. PIV was and has been rushed by INTEL and the consumer will be asked again to bin their CPU+motherboard with any future upgrades after this release. A product cycle of less than 1 year.

No wonder MOTHERBOARD manufacturers are slow to adopt PIV. It takes that amount of time just to iron out any bugs in new architecture, so why adopt when this will be supplanted so swiftly.

These CPU comparisons of late from all concerned in the ONLINE community only show how much they need to mature in their methodology and critique.

A BMW+extras and FERRARI would not get a comparative review in any legitimate press because they both pursue different markets. Initial cost of ownership would be offset by running cost.
MD have acceptance in consumer market, what market are INTEL targetting PIV, when their best benefits are consumer related @ best. Would you be impressed if VIA released CYRIXIII @ 2 ghz, thought not.

Although informative in relation to performance we do not see the same applied to GRAPHICS cards so why the discrepancy. We all see charts for mx's vs gts2 vs gts3 vs radeon vs KYROII but they all cover different sectors in the market namely cost v performance and we accept this.

Please leave the goal post anchored to the ground, this way we all know which goal to aim for.
August 29, 2001 1:18:08 PM

Anger management or not, I have to agree with AMDMeltDown on this one.

<font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2001 1:35:44 PM

It wasnt all that long ago THG was being acused of AMD favortism by all the Intel trolls and had AMD advertising too at the time. heh, shoe is on the other foot for now. Tom does a fair review IMHO but I also compare results with other sites.

Medication helps :smile:
August 29, 2001 2:21:19 PM

Trolls like to stay near the bridge.

What is the difference between <font color=red>pink</font color=red>and <font color=purple>purple</font color=purple>? The <b>GRIP</b>!
August 29, 2001 5:09:59 PM

Good post.
Another reason why the Athlon is better is it doesn't use rambus memory.
I will never willingly pay any money for any product that benefits Rambus.
Plus the benchmarks don't show the latency problems with rambus memory, which will affect real-life applications.
When the p4 uses ddr memory and is close to the Athlon in price, I would consider it. But right now The Athlon is still the best deal out there for most people
Maybe the prices will keep on dropping:-)
August 30, 2001 4:42:27 AM

Not a direct reply to you, but everyone in this thread. How could Tom have manipulated the results when he is quite obviously pro AMD in every damn review and news tidbit he gives? Stiff shieet if there was a big ad for Intel at the same time of the review. All you people try and read between the lines when there is absolutely nothing there to read. You're like tabloid newspapers trying to create a stir for the sake of reading your own posts. No offense to anyone, just my view.
August 30, 2001 5:03:59 AM

I have to agree. I haven't been poking around on this very long but in the time I have spent on here it became pretty obvious he was pro athlon. In fact I really hadn't considered an athlon until I started looking at this site.
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2001 5:36:40 PM

The Athlon wins it share of benchmarks

Share to word only 1 is way better.MDK the oldest game in all of this.In the new game only 1 serious sam.
August 30, 2001 6:50:50 PM

I still see even P4 2.0G got beaten by Athlon 1.4G in <b>Unreal</b>.

:smile: Good or Bad have no meaning at all, depends on what your point of view is.
August 30, 2001 6:54:39 PM

And we all know how important those benchmarks are.

What is the difference between <font color=red>pink</font color=red> and <font color=purple>purple</font color=purple>? The <b>GRIP</b>!