P4 3 GHz article biased
Last response: in CPUs
First of all, I would like you to know, that I'm german and my english is therefore not that good ![;)]( ";)")
I usually read articles on THG Germany as well as articles on THG USA.
The latest article on the P4 overclocking abillities was written by Frank Völkel of THG Germany.
Here in Germany we all know Frank Völkels articles very well and I can assure you, he must be biased in favour of INTEL. Every time he writes an article, the forum is not accessible, due to "maintanance work on the server" - lol!
Many people in germany HATE him for his unbelievable biased articles.
Some people here in this forum said, the comments on the performance of the P4 of THG would be false because of false translation of the original article.
Well, thats plain wrong, the original article is even more biased. Look, Tom Pabst himself never would write such plain BS.
Why did they not use an overclocked Athlon XP to compare it?
When it should only be a test how far the 0.13 process could bring frequencies, why compare it to the Athlon XP???
I saw an Athlon XP with watercooling going up to 2,33 GHz, why didn't the put that on the review??? Simply because it would have ripped away the P4 3 GHz, easily!
The complete article stinks, imho.
Give me a break, I'm not biased, but this article is really kind of fishy.
Regards from Bavaria/Germany
PS: Tom Pabst is not Asutrian, but Bavarian also![;)]( ";)")
I usually read articles on THG Germany as well as articles on THG USA.
The latest article on the P4 overclocking abillities was written by Frank Völkel of THG Germany.
Here in Germany we all know Frank Völkels articles very well and I can assure you, he must be biased in favour of INTEL. Every time he writes an article, the forum is not accessible, due to "maintanance work on the server" - lol!
Many people in germany HATE him for his unbelievable biased articles.
Some people here in this forum said, the comments on the performance of the P4 of THG would be false because of false translation of the original article.
Well, thats plain wrong, the original article is even more biased. Look, Tom Pabst himself never would write such plain BS.
Why did they not use an overclocked Athlon XP to compare it?
When it should only be a test how far the 0.13 process could bring frequencies, why compare it to the Athlon XP???
I saw an Athlon XP with watercooling going up to 2,33 GHz, why didn't the put that on the review??? Simply because it would have ripped away the P4 3 GHz, easily!
The complete article stinks, imho.
Give me a break, I'm not biased, but this article is really kind of fishy.
Regards from Bavaria/Germany
PS: Tom Pabst is not Asutrian, but Bavarian also
More about : ghz article biased
::sighs:: not another thread on this subject.
Frank vookel is ....well weird, some of his articles are down right retarded.(his ultimate silverado couldnt cool his oced axp for one lol. everyone knows the silverado peaks at 1.3ghz at most)
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
Frank vookel is ....well weird, some of his articles are down right retarded.(his ultimate silverado couldnt cool his oced axp for one lol. everyone knows the silverado peaks at 1.3ghz at most)
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
I think it's safe to say that for some reason he doesn't like AMD. It's something personal. Maybe some people over at AMD didn't treat him with the respect he thinks he deserves, so he's just paying back now.
He's not lying directly, but one gets the feeling that he's holding back information at times, and he's surely not focusing on the weaknesses of the P4.
If you want a review to favor the P4, you make sure to test only under WinXP and you include a sufficient number of SSE2 optimized applications.
Notice how recent benchmarks are made exclusively under WinXP which is optimized for the P4. I know, the Athlon XP also gains from WinXP, but it isn't doing bad under Win98 either. If you've ever seen Win98 benchmarks, you'll know the P4 is suffering under that OS. It's OK to benchmark under WinXP as it's the future OS, but why not also include some Win98 benchmarks ? It's still the most used OS today and people should be informed on how the two CPU's are doing under that OS.
I guess it all sums up to the words: Bias or personal preference.
<i>/Copenhagen</i>
<b><i>Seagate Barracuda IV.
Bad performance in RAID setups!
</i></b>
He's not lying directly, but one gets the feeling that he's holding back information at times, and he's surely not focusing on the weaknesses of the P4.
If you want a review to favor the P4, you make sure to test only under WinXP and you include a sufficient number of SSE2 optimized applications.
Notice how recent benchmarks are made exclusively under WinXP which is optimized for the P4. I know, the Athlon XP also gains from WinXP, but it isn't doing bad under Win98 either. If you've ever seen Win98 benchmarks, you'll know the P4 is suffering under that OS. It's OK to benchmark under WinXP as it's the future OS, but why not also include some Win98 benchmarks ? It's still the most used OS today and people should be informed on how the two CPU's are doing under that OS.
I guess it all sums up to the words: Bias or personal preference.
<i>/Copenhagen</i>
<b><i>Seagate Barracuda IV.
Bad performance in RAID setups!
</i></b>
ok, maybe he got somthing aginst AMD.
but we all do agree that the benchmark result are in-line with the system spec it was runing on.
i think they should use windows XP.
Windows XP is Microsoft flagship OS replacing both win 200 and win 98/me. if your going for a new OS or a new computer - its going to be Windows XP.
but we all do agree that the benchmark result are in-line with the system spec it was runing on.
i think they should use windows XP.
Windows XP is Microsoft flagship OS replacing both win 200 and win 98/me. if your going for a new OS or a new computer - its going to be Windows XP.
<blockquote><font size=1>Svar på:</font><hr><p>if your going for a new OS or a new computer - its going to be Windows XP.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yes, that's likely, but not certain. Hardcore gamers are still best served with Win98. Professionals are conservative when it comes to OS, so most likely a lot of them are going to keep their current OS for a couple of years more. These people should also know how their new computer will perform.
<i>/Copenhagen</i>
<b><i>Seagate Barracuda IV.
Bad performance in RAID setups!
</i></b>
<i>/Copenhagen</i>
<b><i>Seagate Barracuda IV.
Bad performance in RAID setups!
</i></b>
Related ressources:
- ForumThe P4 4.1 GHZ Article : discussions here
- ForumBiased 3 DMark03 Article (was NVidia is spoonfeed~
- ForumIs the ASUS crosshair V+580 giving biased results for the Bulldozer?
- ForumP4 3600 article /leak - Intel afraid?
- ForumeWeek - weak reporting by biased reporters? intel quad core
- ForumDo you admit that toms review was biased ?
- ForumTo everyone who thinks that THG is biased (repost)
- ForumAre Tom's Reviews Biased ?
- ForumTom is biased , lost respect for you
- ForumMore biased BS, Tom is Full of [-peep-].
- ForumIntel biased forum??
- ForumP4 5 GHz Article or not!
- ForumToms article fastest 3 D cards go head to head!... Biased ?
- ForumBiased article from THG?
- ForumThermaltake 850w PCI-E question
- ForumAthlon XP 1800+ at 1.1 GHz?
- ForumThe article on the XP 1900+ at 2000+
- Forumis upgrade to PIII 1.2 Ghz possible?
- ForumXP article
- ForumQuestion about core voltage for AMD 1.4 Ghz
- More resources
!
