My observations:
1) Ncogneto, you have a point. The use of an IDE hard drive itself was very odd. To make it one with with only a 2MB cache was even stranger. Anyone who is going to spend that kind of money on a system is no doubt concerned with one thing and one thing only: performance. The review should have used a SCSI hard drive that would blow away anything that IDE could ever hope to be.
2) Again, THG fails to mention the density of the RIMMS used.
3) Why does one of the graphics have the subtitle "The well-known Intel Southbridge 82801BA.", yet the picture of the chip reads as 82806AA?
4) Did anyone else notice that in three of the benchmark results (Sandra02/Mem, SM02/Ov, and SM02/OP) the dual MP 2000+ platform was actually beat out by the single MP 1900+ platform? Funky. It looks like AMD has a few quirks in their dual platform's operation to work out.
5) Is it me, or does the statement, "With its Athlon MP 2000+, AMD has added a high-performance processor to its portfolio. And what's more - it certainly holds its own against the Intel Xeon 2200.", seem <b>very</b> biased towards AMD, considering the benchmark results?
<font color=red>MP3: Dual Xeon2200 is 134.74% faster than Dual MP2000+</font color=red>
<font color=red>MP4: Dual Xeon2200 is 110.53% faster than Dual MP2000+</font color=red>
<font color=red>LW7b: Dual Xeon2200 is 146.04% faster than Dual MP2000+</font color=red>
<font color=green>C4D: Dual MP2000+ is 101.16% faster than Dual Xeon2200</font color=green>
<font color=red>3DSM: Dual Xeon2200 is 100.72% faster than Dual MP2000+</font color=red>
<font color=red>SM02/Ov: Dual Xeon2200 is 130.77% faster than Dual MP2000+</font color=red>
<font color=red>SM02/ICC: Dual Xeon2200 is 149.15% faster than Dual MP2000+</font color=red>
<font color=red>SMo2/OP: Dual Xeon2200 is 114.18% faster than Dual MP2000+</font color=red>
Out of the 9 application benchmarks, the Athlon only won 2 of them. It barely won Cinema4D by a whole 101.16%. And it 'won' Pinnacle Studio 7 only because the software for some reason (read software bug) couldn't even run using a Xeon processor. So we have no idea what the performance difference is according to the Pinnacle Studio 7 benchmark.
That leaves the Xeon having won the other <b>7</b> benchmarks. At one point the Dual Xeon 2200 beat out the Athlon MP 2000+ by a whopping <b>149.15%</b>.
And while I have excluded the SiSoft Sandra benchmarks results for being theoretical only, we still saw the Dual Xeon2200 best the Dual Athlon MP 2000+ in all three Sandra benchmark results.
Overall, across the 8 usable benchmarks, the Dual Xeon2200 performed on average 123.12% better than the Dual Athlon MP 2000+.
So would I saw that the Dual Athlon MP 2000+ "certainly holds its own" against the Dual Xeon 2200? Certainly not!
Now, before anyone turns my comments into an Intel vs. AMD debate, let me point out that the PR rating of the dual AMD platform <i>was</i> 200 points lower than the Xeon's MHz. So given even that, we <i>shouldn't</i> be expecting to see the dual Athlon MP platform performing equally with the dual Xeon platform anyway. After all, the AMD platform is two PR rating steps behind the Intel platform. I am <b>not</b> saying that Intel is better than AMD. I am merely saying that the conclusion drawn by <i>Frank Völkel</i> and <i>Bert Töpelt</i> is completely baseless and in fact contradictory to the benchmark results of the review they just ran. So I figure either they wrote the conclusion before they ran the benchmarks, or else they're extrordinarily biased.
<pre>If you let others think for you, you're the
only one to blame when things go wrong.</pre><p>