Cyberpower’s Gamer Dragon: Can AMD Bring The Game?

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]sandmanwn[/nom]Put it to you like this... you won't be remembered. [/citation]

Oh my! Do you really mean my articles will never become as popular, important, and well-read as your forum comments?

Maybe you could teach me how to become a respected and famous writer like you!

/sarcasm (not to be confused with a joke) 😉
 
Ooooh! you are the master.
Perhaps you could give me some tips on mastering the art of backpedalling.
You see, he entered the forum with this gem:

[citation][nom]sandmanwn[/nom]typical BS from don aka cleeve. he wrote the SBM articles and decided this would be a perfect time to rig a review to support his previous conclusion. its garbage and people like don have ruined THG.[/citation]

Yet now he has switched gears to play the kindhearted and injured soul, innocent and victimized:

[citation][nom]sandmanwn[/nom]I find it most funny that the author has spent so much time belittling others. Sort of sad really, how much time do you have? Did you loose your day job or something?[/citation]

Those are SKILLZ brah! Gotta teach me that one... 😀
 

Still going on? Your life must be such a waste and so very sad. Defending to the bitter end a worthless pile.

The way you are going you might just end up in a frenzied fit on your way to the funny farm. A touch of criticism and he's off on a 30 post tirade in defense of poo.

Its almost hysterical to watch.

Look carefully everyone this is the true measure of the reviewers here.
 


...asks the world-renowned and respected writer who, coincidentally, is also here (and by association, is speaking about life from personal experience).

Yes, I'll be here for a while. Heck, I'm paid to be here and see what's going on.

Self-righteous flamebaits like you are just a way for me to pass the time and get amusement in addition to my cheque. 😀

 
Ok, I guess after reading all 16 pages of this I should at least make a post that's worthwhile. In all honesty I really don't see where everyone is getting this "Cleeve is douche biased intel fanboy who's main goal in life is to make AMD look like crap". I've read tons of reviews on this site and i've never once gotten the feeling that any writer here was biased in any way. I've seen them recommend products from both intel and AMD all the time. I've even seen them say in many of their reviews, that while intel products performed better in their tests, because of price/performance ratio, AMD would be the way to go if you're operating on a budget and don't want to speed the extra money on intel. I saw this article being no different. They had a i7 system and an AMD system and wanted to compare the two. They thoroughly benchmarked the two, and the i7 system came out on top. Cleeve, announced the i7 system as the better one, because, well, it performed better in the tests that he ran. Now, i'll admit, I agree that if you want to truly and fairly compare the i7 920 to the P2 955, the systems that they are in should be as uniform as possible. But, I give the benefit of the doubt to Cleeve because, technically two 4890's should have no problems beating out two GTX 260's. Now, Cleeve admitted that even he was surprised at the results of some of the tests. He acknowledged that. On the flip side, if he was really that surprised, could he have looked into further before posting the results? Yes, he could have. But the fact that he has taken the time to listen to what everyone has to say, look all the benchmarks people have posted that show something wasn't quite right, admit that he should re-test, agree to retest and take all of the input from everyone who has posted on exactly how to go about doing that re-test...says alot about how NOT biased he is IMO.

Now, Cleeve, GIVE ME THAT NEW ARTICLE NOW!
 
Well, do hope its not bait this, of the reviews cleeve did he had right, i give him the benfit of the doubt, and yes the build he is doing now will prove him right as well. Anyone that know how to build knows that

What conserns me that its just avarage framerate, ok, But well i seen a a change on Toms, they are getting more neutrual, i appricate that, thoose who rember old Toms, when they was the only site that actually said a prescot was better than an a athlon :), well u had hardcops to. :)

U can ask how did they prove that :)

Well they made sure that the grapic card was the bottelneck, so even a prescot could do well :), but that is yrs ago i hope they changed.

I have my doubts, but i actually think Cleeve is going to prove he knows what he is doing. He already admitted some faults i dont think he do them again, if he do, well "those who know better" can tell. Sad thing is that those who can not, cant tell.

I have trust that he gives a ok review, but the setup is as it is, and the i7 rig will win. Thats a fact, couse actually its a darn good cpu. But what is wrong is that hes not using the potesial to build a rig that can at least stand a change against hes 1300$ build, because there is.

If he had choosen diffrent on hes smb build it would be harder , but as it is now, a phii 940, am2+ 790fx motherbord, vertex and 2 x4870 will be a better overall computer.

What is the clue and why i7 will win this new build is, well pure and simpel, i7 is a better numbercruncher, 955 is just sligly better than 940, i dosnt clock much more that the 940, ddr 3 brings littel to the tabel for an phenom, in games hardly nothing, and hes not going to test min framrates.

So yes this new test he is doing will prove hes first test right, simple as that. :)

But with a bit smaller margins thou. But from a builders standpoint, he is doing the phenom setup all wrong :), but ok leave it with that, i recon i will leave this forum after reading the test :)



 
[citation][nom]osse[/nom]So yes this new test he is doing will prove hes first test right, simple as that. [/citation]

you keep saying that, osse. I'm finished the tests, and they don't prove me 'right'. They don't prove me 'wrong', either.
 
LOL and he's still going. :pfff:

That is downright hilarious. I called your article that about 3-4 pages ago. Nothing more than a flame bait article to get posts counts and page views up. Actually I'm going to go ahead and deem it a glorified blog post now do to glaring inaccuracies.

Flame bait is two separate words by the way. Maybe you should ask the world-renowned and respected writer for a spell check. Then you can ask a real tech oriented reviewer to show you how to perform proper reviews.

This is lame. Your constant diatribe makes you look so foolish. What are you at now 30-40 posts? How long can you go about defending this poo. The sad thing is the next article will probably be just as flawed.

Just in case any Cyberpower people are still reading this I would suggest using alternate sites to bring your products into the market place. Other sites will actually compare your products to similar setups and will contact you to discuss disparities in the testing results before they lambaste your product in the public light, because there is clearly disparaging numbers for the data shown here against similar tests.
 
[citation][nom]sandmanwn[/nom]This is lame. Your constant diatribe makes you look so foolish. [/citation]

Yes! And yours makes you look like a cultured, pleasant gentleman with no axe to grind, right?

[citation][nom]sandmanwn[/nom]LOL and he's still going.[/citation]

He is... isn't he?

I wonder how many more paragraphs I can goad out of you with single sentence responses. 😀
 


Yours are the few posts that I can read through without nausea, so thanks. But isn't that what you're trying to do now?

As for "performance at $1300", given any "winner" you can probably shift the result by choosing $1200, or maybe even $1400. Its just a data point.
 
What I don't understand is if Don wanted to be biased and make the Intel system look better, would he not do so in a more conservative manner? The results for some games here look like something you'd find in a powerpoint presentation from Intel or NVIDIA, not a review, because there is such an incredible difference between the systems' performance. When distorting the truth you usually don't go and make it as outrageous as this, otherwise nobody is going to accept it anyway (which can be seen in the comments). I think there's something strange here, but it's not bias, because that would be a very poor attempt at being biased.
 
@twoboxer

not sure what u meen, do u know abaut the time that it was prescot vs athlon ?, or penium, forgive me if my memory fault me now. But since 19992 it been only one time AMD been really better that intel and that was with the athlon, and that was true until intel discovered that the netburst was the wrong way to go and devlov it back then latop cpu to be the desktop cpu. Intel had all th yrs they just didnt know it, but a few entusiast di know, only thing that could beat athlon was their laptop cpu, netburst was , well a false trail as darvin would say.

a link that died out. Forgive me for not rembering all the names.

But ok sites like Toms would accept that netburst was a false trail so they tested the cpus with grapic card that made all cpu the same, not sure if the test are here still but toms and hardcop was the only sites off all that managed to get the netburst to look as good as the athlon. they used underpwered grapic cards so it would show the same

i am not lieing its the plain truth. but that is yrs ago and i seen changes . oH well im drunk as a fiddel, so i dont rember all.

DArn Cleave was i wrong, it would be closer 4870 vs 4890 but still i7 should have the wins , right

 
The tests are gonna show up the problems with the original gaming benchmarks. Mostly that means WiC - I'm sure by Cleeve's comments that the Phenom II has come out ahead on that one.

I'm equally sure that a lot of the added games have come out in favour of the Phenom II. This is all we've been trying to say from the start - the review isn't lie, there isn't any bias going on here - it's just been a bad choice of games that has made the Dragon look worse than it is.

It's not just been this review, it's been most reviews on THG recently that have failed somewhat down to bad game choices. Hence the boiling over frustration many AMD fans feel.
 
@Osse: No, it wasn't about lying, or anything close to that lol. It just seemed to me that pressure was being applied here to load the gpu so the cpu was irrelevant. Same type of thing you thought was unfair in times past.

@jennyh: Yes, I understand that. Something unidentified (?) happened, and knowing the reasons will be . . . well, at least fun. As for a "bad" choice of games . . .

@both: I posted earlier how I'm not sure exactly what constitutes a fair mix of games. Pick the most played? by hours/week? by units sold?

Picking only "challenging" games? OK, but which? all of them? cpu or gpu? Pick 2 that make intel look good, pick 2 that make amd look good, and 3 toss-ups? That would be rigging it to come out even-looking, wouldn't it?

The closer AMD/Intel and nVidia/"ATI" are, the better off we all are. But . . . well, enough said.
 
There is no real "fair mix" because if you only pick out games where there are no obvious winners then it doesn't show anything useful to buyers. Just because a game is "optimised" for one architecture or another doesn't matter to some people, because if they play that game then they will still choose a card/CPU from the manufacturer who "cheated" as it still provides the highest performance. If I have a choice between a GTX280 and a HD4870 and I play GRID then I will want the ATI card, regardless of whether the GTX280 is actually more powerful than the HD4870 or not, because the 4870 still beats it in that game. If I play Crysis (heaven forbid) then I will want to make sure I pick up an NVIDIA card. Do I care if the developers were paid off? No, I just want the faster card for that game.

I suppose if you wanted a "fair" comparison then you'd have to benchmark every game.
 
[citation][nom]osse[/nom]Cleave was i wrong, it would be closer 4870 vs 4890 but still i7 should have the wins , right[/citation]

Here's the coles notes of the follow-up review:

The Cyberpower system was underperforming a little at times. It wasn't a massive gap, but when combined with Far Cry 2 and Crysis' preference for the GeForce over Radeons, it looked a lot worse than it was.
After I originally took the Cyberpower benches I *did* some diligence to see if it stood up believe it or not, but I didn't do enough and from what I compared it to looked believable. As well, I had convinced myself that the 4890 would overpower the GTX 260 to the point where game-specific performance gaps wouldn't make much of a difference. I apologized for these issues in the article and will do what I can to make sure they don't happen in the future; sorry lads.

With the Phenom II paired with 4890's and the i7 with 4870s, the systems stood toe-to-toe at 1920x1200 when gaming. When there was a difference, it wasn't more than a couple fps except maybe in Crysis where the Phenom II/4890's got a bit of a lead. The rest of them were so close you'd never notice during a game, but the i7 did tend to perform a bit better in WiC and tended to get better results at resolutions lower than 1920x1200.

In all of the new games we introduced (HAWX, Fallout 3, Prototype, and Left 4 Dead), the i7 took a theoretical 'win' because these games tended to be CPU-limited, which was a bit of a surprise. But we're talking 120 fps vs. 100 fps, not a real-world victory.

The final analysis was that the Phenom II (with 4890s) makes a fine gaming machine that can duke it out with the i7 (with 4870s) at 1920x1200.
Having said that, at the same price point as the i7 920 system we'd still recommend the i7 because it tends to offer faster performance in applications, and games are just as fast.

However, the Phenom II gets a big recommendation for a budget gaming rig - not so much for an AM3/955 combo like we tested, but for the AM2+ Phenom II or Phenom II X3 which can be paired with a cheaper motherboard (like the 790GX or 790X) for a machine that's almost as fast as the Phenom II 955/4890 combo, but for hundreds cheaper. (and yes osse, you can get an SSD with that if you like)

That's about it, for the details check the review. I'm hoping it'll be up in the next week or so.
 
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]Here's the coles notes of the follow up review:The Cyberpower system was underperforming a little at times. It wasn't a massive gap, but when combined with Far Cry 2 and Crysis' preference for the GeForce over Radeons, it looked a lot worse than it was. After I originally took the Cyberpower benches I *did* some diligence to see if it stood up believe it or not, but I didn't do enough and from what I compared it to looked believable. As well, I had convinced myself that the 4890 would overpower the GTX 260 to the point where game-specific performance gaps wouldn't make much of a difference. I apologized for these issues in the article and will do what I can to make sure they don't happen in the future; sorry lads.With the Phenom II paired with 4890's and the i7 with 4870s, the systems stood toe-to-toe at 1920x1200 when gaming. When there was a difference, it wasn't more than a couple fps except maybe in Crysis where the Phenom II/4890's got a bit of a lead. The rest of them were so close you'd never notice during a game, but the i7 did tend to perform a bit better in WiC and tended to get better results at resolutions lower than 1920x1200.In all of the new games we introduced (HAWX, Fallout 3, Prototype, and Left 4 Dead), the i7 took a theoretical 'win' because these games tended to be CPU-limited, which was a bit of a surprise. But we're talking 120 fps vs. 100 fps, not a real-world victory.The final analysis was that the Phenom II makes a fine gaming machine that can duke it out with the i7 at 1920x1200.Having said that, at the same price point as the i7 920 system we'd still recommend the i7 because it tends to offer faster performance in applications, and games are just as fast.However, the Phenom II get's a big recommendation for a budget gaming rig - the AM2+ Phenom II or Phenom II X3 can be paired with a cheaper motherboard (like the 790GX or 790X) for a machine that's almost as fast as the Phenom II 955/4890 combo, but for hundreds cheaper. (and yes osse, you can get an SSD with that if you like)That's about it, for the details check the review. I'm hoping it'll be up in the next week or so.[/citation]

Just curious...why did you use 4870's with the i7 system instead of 4890's?
 
[citation][nom]thebatman[/nom]Just curious...why did you use 4870's with the i7 system instead of 4890's?[/citation]

The same reason we pitted Cyberpower's Phenom II/4890's against the SBM's i7/GTX 260s: the question was, if you go Phenom II instead of i7 and put the extra money you save towards the graphics cards, can the Phenom II offer comparable gaming performance?
 
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]The same reason we pitted Cyberpower's Phenom II/4890's against the SBM's i7/GTX 260s: the question was, if you go Phenom II instead of i7 and put the extra money you save towards the graphics cards, can the Phenom II offer comparable gaming performance?[/citation]

Ahh ok. Thanks for the reply.
 
Thanks for the follow-up notes Cleeve. Ehen can we expect to see the full article? Also, was 2560x1600 tested? Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom