Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

This is how it might look - a 3 GHz-Celeron.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2002 4:24:17 PM

"This is how it might look - a 3 GHz-Celeron. But, unfortunately, this picture is just photomontage. "

Now, Slvr, are you still claiming the P4 3.3 Ghz ES picture was genuine ?

As to THG: finally.. Im glad you took "my" advice. Too bad you still didnt clearly admit the 3.3Ghz was a photomontage as well though..

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

More about : ghz celeron

October 16, 2002 4:30:34 PM

I never said it was genuine. I said that there was no proof that THG directly and purposely editied the photo. For all we know, they could have just borrowed someone else's image and may or may not have believed that it was genuine themselves at the time.

Frankly, there just <i>was no proof</i>.

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"><font color=red>Join</font color=red> <font color=blue>the</font color=blue> <font color=green>THGC</font color=green> <font color=orange>LAN</font color=orange> <font color=purple>Party</font color=purple>!</A>
October 16, 2002 4:34:22 PM

My question is why do they think these doctored pictures are necessary (or even desireable) at all? What's up with that?
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2002 4:41:33 PM

Oh man.. you need help !.. you are still willing to believe that P4 picture was either real, or unintentionally doctored ?? ? Sure thing ! maybe the "accidental" fake gave them the idea to actually produce one this time. Sounds very believeable. Get a clue. Didnt you read the replies of THG in my Barton thread. Did that sound as "oops, we accidentally used a fake pic" ? Im not debating this anymore. I guess if even Tom would post in here that it was a doctored pic, you'd still say: we are not sure it was Tom that wrote that, maybe someone hacked his site.. sheesh..

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2002 5:13:44 PM

On second thought.. lets just for a second assume the impossible happend, and THG decided to surf around the net, looking for a picture of a cpu that doesnt even yet exist, and if it would exist as an engineering sample, it would be under NDA, so publishing the photo would likely be illegal and would certainly put the owner of the cpu in trouble. So, after 4 weeks, they find one, they do not ask the the permission of whoever published it, disregard the possible NDA it is under, and put in on their website, without even mentioning the source. Then, a few weirdo's discover its a fake, and what does THG do ? They only claim "we never said the picture was of the cpu used in our testing, our benchmarks still remain vaild. Besides, we couldnt publish our real pics to protect *our* source". They leave the fake picture in the review, do not add a disclaimer, even when they know the picture is fake, and the entire internet community is attacking them on that. How is that for journalistic integrity ? Why then not just say: we got suckered, got the pic from here, and we removed it when we discovered it was fake.

And how likely is this scenario, that THG found that picture, and no one else among these thousands of hardware enthiousiasts following this controverse..

One very last comment on this subject: I still believe in Santaclaus. Unless you can prove me otherwise.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
October 16, 2002 6:00:03 PM

bbaeyens, you need help. You're taking this <b>way</b> too seriously.

All that I've ever said is that I refuse to close my mind on a subject that doesn't have any definitive proof one way or the other. I am open to the possability that THG didn't fake the picture just as I am open to the possability that they did. And until <b>actual proof</b> exists, I simply leave it open at that.

The simple fact that you won't even allow people to be open-minded to more than one view on the subject is very sad indeed. I leave it at that and consider my part in this 'discussion' at an end because I have nothing further to say on the matter.

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"><font color=red>Join</font color=red> <font color=blue>the</font color=blue> <font color=green>THGC</font color=green> <font color=orange>LAN</font color=orange> <font color=purple>Party</font color=purple>!</A>
October 16, 2002 6:10:48 PM

LOL...This sounds more like a religious debate than one about hardware!

<font color=red>I'd like to dedicate this post to all my friends, family, and fans. Without them this post would never have been possible. Thank you!</font color=red>
October 16, 2002 7:20:09 PM

I knew he would bring something up about the pictures caption because he can't let it die.

<font color=blue>Unofficial Forum Cop</font color=blue>
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2002 8:38:32 PM

Did you start that whole lame thread about the pic not being real? Because whoever did is an idiot, a complete moron. Why? The caption never stated that it was a 3.3GHz processor, it showed a REAL ENGINEERING SAMPLE. Now I'm sure Intel keeps track of the numbers on engineering samples, which is likely why they covered them up! The "owner" of the CPU didn't want to get in trouble with Intel. Anyone accusing anyone of making false claims when in fact they made no claims is a true idiot who doesn't even deserve the right to speak in a forum of class.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2002 10:07:41 PM

>Did you start that whole lame thread about the pic not
>being real? Because whoever did is an idiot, a complete
>moron.

I made the spoof if thats what you mean, yes. And yes it was about the faked picture, as well as about bad benchmarking, copy/paste articles, etc. If you read it, Im sure you noticed that. And I hope it made you laugh, if not, well, though luck, you where one of the few then.

>Why? The caption never stated that it was a 3.3GHz
>processor, it showed a REAL ENGINEERING SAMPLE.

Real ? Not real, the cpu didnt exist. They blanked out serial numbers (I suppose), and a part of that special "grid" which makes perfect sense, no problem with that. But its not coinidence they added a "3.3" there. That was not for covering up their source, and you know it. Besides, they didnt even have to doctor the photo at all, as the real ES which they published later didnt show any serial number information as far as I can remember. And if it did, they could have blurred it out. But it didnt show anything referring to 3.3 Ghz either, so they made a photo to make the review more spectacular. If you dont want to believe that, fine, then don't.

> Now I'm sure Intel keeps track of the numbers on
>engineering samples, which is likely why they covered
>them up!

As I said, its an obvious reason to doctor a photo, but just the serial or identification number, not the clockspeed.

>Anyone accusing anyone of making false claims when in >fact they made no claims is a true idiot
>who doesn't even deserve the right to speak in a forum of >class.

*cough* okay, deny me the right to speak my mind on this classy forum, be my guest. And call me an idiot and a moron if that makes you feel any better. I guess I'm the only one that cares about journalistic integrity around here. The simple fact that after all this hassle, all these discussions, flames we STILL do not know for sure (at least slvr doesnt) if that picture was fake or not, should make you wonder. THG has written a folow up of the article, they have published several posts in this forum on the subject, 100's of people have asked the question, yet *STILL* they have not said: the pic is real, or it is a fake. Such a simple question, yet no straightforward answer. Maybe you find that normal, I don't. And I am going to repeat this for the very last time: the picture itself is not important, the principle *IS*. If we allow them to publish fake pictures, perhaps fake BIOS screenshots, and then they deny it or refuse to answer when questioned, whats next ? temperature measurements of a (overclocked-but-forgot-to-mention-that) cpu, of a non existant XP 3000+, but with fake picture and bios screenshot (but nowhere does it say the shots are real) ? Fake benchmarks, extrapolated quake3 charts ? Is that okay ? I guess it would make me a true idiot for taking issue with that as well, since they wouldnt claim the benchmarks to be "real".

>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third
>class, but it's still class!

Well, I guess I don't fit in this class. Looks to me like THG and THGC deserve each other. Classy people, classy reviews. I'm out a here. Have fun with melty, fugger, Juin & company.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2002 11:49:28 PM

Hmm, you made me actually read the numbers, I see your point now abou the pic being faked, now I can't explain why they would do that knowing that I wasn't going to bother reading the numbers and trying to decipher them on an Engineering sample anyway. I mean, they know me at least that well by now...maybe they put the fake numbers on there to upset you? Anyway, when I see the word "Confidential" I automatically assume that none of the numbers that follow are going to be clock speed numbers.

Now that I've read the numbers I see what all the yelling was about. Let me be the first to appologize to you and scold the editors for playing with the photo that those of us who actually read articles instead of staring at pictures wouldn't notice.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2002 8:17:32 AM

>bbaeyens, you need help. You're taking this way too
>seriously.

Probably...

>I am open to the possability that THG didn't fake the
>picture just as I am open to the possability that they
>did.

They should be critized for it *either* way. If it was an honest mistake, they should rectify it and explain what happend. Not doing that isnt any better as forging the pic.

> leave it at that and consider my part in
>this 'discussion' at an end because I have nothing
>further to say on the matter.

I guess I made my point as well.. I'm just having a hard time many people don't object to these practices, and let THG get away with it without a proper explanation and/or apology and/or at least rectification.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2002 8:26:30 AM

>Hmm, you made me actually read the numbers, I see your
>point now abou the pic being faked,

Where have you been ? I mean, did you actually read the thread for which you called me a moron ? Did you see the spoof ? If you somehow managed to miss it, go <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&..." target="_new">here for the thread </A> and the spoof can be found <A HREF="http://home.planetinternet.be/~bbaeyen2/thb/" target="_new"> here</A>

>Now that I've read the numbers I see what all the yelling
>was about

What numbers ? Are you now referring to the 3.3 P4 or the Celeron ?

>Let me be the first to appologize to you

Apologies accepted, no problem. Just wondering what it was you actually missed.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
October 17, 2002 11:53:09 AM

I can see it now... new heights of Hollow Mhz.

P4 Northwood Celleron @ 3.0Ghz, 128k cache, 128Mb PC100 CAS3 sdram, integrated sound & graphics, 5400rpm HDD.

<b>Microsoft is good for you. MS has your best intrests at heart. MS products are easy to use, Reliable, Bug free and Secure. MS says so. What possible reason would they have to lie to you?</b>
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2002 12:05:30 PM

Actually that wasn't the thread I was refering to. The thread I was refering to started out with someone ranting and raving about how tom cheated blah blah blah...I read about the first two sentences of it, and probably about the first 5 words of each response. It started out as an argument where someone's initial argument was that Tom couldn't procure a chip at that speed, someone said it was an overclocked chip, someone else said the article showed it was a real chip...I gave up on the thread before seeing mention of the chip markings.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
October 17, 2002 5:27:12 PM

OMG OMG OMG !!!

bbaeyens i just read your spoof and it was amazing ! It is so damn true ! when they say obvious leader when the cpu wins by like 0.02% !

Your benchmarks were really original and really captured the way i feel about tomshardware for a while now. Lest loop SSE2 optimized photoshop flter ! hahah !

Your sarcasm is superb !

PS I can't believe there are ppl dumb enough to believe it was a real article. I guess this is why Intel and Microsoft are on top.

PPS. INTEL makes good processor most of the time, but the first p4 was crap. all depends.


GO READ HIS SPOOF ! you will have a different look at THG after.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2002 6:08:40 PM

Ah you mean <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&..." target="_new"> this thread </A> perhaps ? My longest discussion with slvr ever, and he is still not convinced, even after the "proof" I presented in that thread, after the article updates, after the reactions/almost-apologies of THG editors in this forum, and now after the fake 3.0 GHz Celeron picture... he still maintains the 3.3 GHz P4 picture might just as well be either an honest mistake, or a genuine picture.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2002 6:10:21 PM

Where have you been ? That thing is *old* news.. glad you appreciated it though

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2002 6:50:23 PM

That might have been it. Anyway, nice pic, can I have that 5200+?

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2002 6:53:38 PM

I'll give you one, if you arrange me a motherboard :-p

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2002 7:12:34 PM

Deal, let me reinstall photoshop and get busy on that board.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
!