I have read Tom's reviews for quite some while, and I've always noticed something. And Underlying bias of sorts. A /very/ Pro-AMD, Anti-Intel feel which makes for sceptical reading. Before we get a swarm of "AMD ownz j00" spam, let's keep this away from which chip is better, and more towards "Does Tom represent his benchmarks fairly?"
Let's look at one of his more recent reviews found at: http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020107/index.html or known as "The Eternal Race: P4 vs. Athlon XP". This is a review mainly looking at the difference between the AMD XP 2000 vs the P4 2.2 (Northwood).
Let's look at the benchmarks he provides:
At page http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020107/p42200-12.html we see two benchmarks. On the Top Graph, the AMD XP 2000 scores 10460 and the P4 2.2Ghz a 10231 in 3D Mark 2000 test. The XP 2000 runs apparently at 101.35% the speed of the P4. Under this graph we see the text "... the AMD Athlon XP is able to dominate the scene and take the lead". Interestingly enough, in the bottom graph showing 3D Mark 2001 scores we see a similar comparison; this time the P4 with a score of 7452 and the XP with 7348. The P4 apparently running at 101.41% of the speed of the AMD. An unbaised report should, in theory, show at least somewhat similar text under this graph this time labeling the P4 as a "Dominator", no? After all, it did win by a slighltly greater gap, right? Well, what we see is "... the Pentium 4/2200 overtakes the lead by a nose ...". This is the sort of bias I am speaking of, though in all fairness it could be entirely the subconsious of the reviewer. Let's continue, shall we?
You can see for yourself through the rest of the benchmarks a sort of "excitement" any time the XP wins out, but very little is said when the P4 kills the competition. More specically, check out the NewTek Lightwabe 7b benchmark (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020107/p42200-15.html) and see for yourself.
As far as benchmarks, I think I've made my point, so let's skip to the conclusion, eh? (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020107/p42200-19.html)
Things like the below tick me off. Tom's page continually professes that they will not be taken in by the difference in clock speeds as they obviously mean /nothing/ when it comes to performance. Yet they say this as if in defense for AMD:
"After all, the top AMD processor has to make do with 1666 MHz, while its archenemy steps in with 2200 MHz. A closer look at the comprehensive benchmarks reveals that in Office performance as well as Linux Kernel compiling, the Athlon XP still takes the lead, despite its 32% clock speed disadvantage!"
I mean COME ON. The 32% drop in clock speed isn't a disadvantage at all, in fact it's what AMD prides itself over. A supposedly more efficient design. When an XP 2000 at 1.67 Ghz beats out a P4 1.9 Ghz, it's proof enough that clock speed is irrelevant when comparing AMD to Intel. They only reason they even appear is really for internal comparison, the 1.9Ghz P4 vs the 2Ghz P4. Don't try to use AMD's strengths as their weakness.
In the end, let me add - I'm usually an AMD supporter. If you don't overclock (like I do), and speed is your thing, AMD is a better buy then Intel most of the time. But when the new P4A beats the AMD XP's best in 13/20 benchmarks, clearly reigning supreme, why don't we see 3 cheers for Intel? An unbaised reviewer would, and I sure do.
Let the flames begin?
Another Note: Even though the P4 2.2 ghz is almost twice the price of the XP 2000, I hear you can OC to 2.57 Ghz w/o extra cooling. As I said, I'm an avid overclocker, and if you are too you might want to consider one when the price drops a bit (which they always do). Intel's are usually a better OC'ing buy, but that's another post entirely.
Let's look at one of his more recent reviews found at: http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020107/index.html or known as "The Eternal Race: P4 vs. Athlon XP". This is a review mainly looking at the difference between the AMD XP 2000 vs the P4 2.2 (Northwood).
Let's look at the benchmarks he provides:
At page http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020107/p42200-12.html we see two benchmarks. On the Top Graph, the AMD XP 2000 scores 10460 and the P4 2.2Ghz a 10231 in 3D Mark 2000 test. The XP 2000 runs apparently at 101.35% the speed of the P4. Under this graph we see the text "... the AMD Athlon XP is able to dominate the scene and take the lead". Interestingly enough, in the bottom graph showing 3D Mark 2001 scores we see a similar comparison; this time the P4 with a score of 7452 and the XP with 7348. The P4 apparently running at 101.41% of the speed of the AMD. An unbaised report should, in theory, show at least somewhat similar text under this graph this time labeling the P4 as a "Dominator", no? After all, it did win by a slighltly greater gap, right? Well, what we see is "... the Pentium 4/2200 overtakes the lead by a nose ...". This is the sort of bias I am speaking of, though in all fairness it could be entirely the subconsious of the reviewer. Let's continue, shall we?
You can see for yourself through the rest of the benchmarks a sort of "excitement" any time the XP wins out, but very little is said when the P4 kills the competition. More specically, check out the NewTek Lightwabe 7b benchmark (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020107/p42200-15.html) and see for yourself.
As far as benchmarks, I think I've made my point, so let's skip to the conclusion, eh? (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020107/p42200-19.html)
Things like the below tick me off. Tom's page continually professes that they will not be taken in by the difference in clock speeds as they obviously mean /nothing/ when it comes to performance. Yet they say this as if in defense for AMD:
"After all, the top AMD processor has to make do with 1666 MHz, while its archenemy steps in with 2200 MHz. A closer look at the comprehensive benchmarks reveals that in Office performance as well as Linux Kernel compiling, the Athlon XP still takes the lead, despite its 32% clock speed disadvantage!"
I mean COME ON. The 32% drop in clock speed isn't a disadvantage at all, in fact it's what AMD prides itself over. A supposedly more efficient design. When an XP 2000 at 1.67 Ghz beats out a P4 1.9 Ghz, it's proof enough that clock speed is irrelevant when comparing AMD to Intel. They only reason they even appear is really for internal comparison, the 1.9Ghz P4 vs the 2Ghz P4. Don't try to use AMD's strengths as their weakness.
In the end, let me add - I'm usually an AMD supporter. If you don't overclock (like I do), and speed is your thing, AMD is a better buy then Intel most of the time. But when the new P4A beats the AMD XP's best in 13/20 benchmarks, clearly reigning supreme, why don't we see 3 cheers for Intel? An unbaised reviewer would, and I sure do.
Let the flames begin?
Another Note: Even though the P4 2.2 ghz is almost twice the price of the XP 2000, I hear you can OC to 2.57 Ghz w/o extra cooling. As I said, I'm an avid overclocker, and if you are too you might want to consider one when the price drops a bit (which they always do). Intel's are usually a better OC'ing buy, but that's another post entirely.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram