Intel bribing THG? Is it possible?

Crashman

Polypheme
Editor
WTF are you on, crack? You don't remember how Intel mistreated THG concerning their exposer of the PIII 1.13 Coppermine flaw? Or Tom's attack on the i820 Rambus chipset? Or Tom's general attack on Rambus? Or Tom's attack on inside deals between Intel and Rambus before their joining? Or the fact that Tom himself testified against Rambus in the memory makers lawsuits? Or Tom's attacks on the Socket 423 platform, or the low IPC of the P4 Willy?

And now you think these guys work for Intel...let me ask you, can I have some of what you're smoking?

So many review sites give you EXACTLY what you want, slanting all their articles toward VIA chipsets (until recently), nVidia graphics cards, and AMD processors. Why? This is the stuff many "enthusiast" WANT to buy. If it has a problem or fails to outperform the competition, can they report that? NO. Because for them to report the truth makes YOU call them biased.

Remember the first heatsink video? The AMD burned up, and thousands of readers left Tom's because they didn't want to accept the truth. The idea behind that test was this: What happens when the custodian knocks over your PC on the floor and the heatsink comes off. Several other explainations were provided, such as the sink comming loose in shipping, etc. All focused towards reasons OEM's might not choose AMD. Tom's told you that they were hoping the heat protection would respond quickly enough to prevent catastrophy, but it didn't. They were as suprised as you maybe, but many readers still left.

Does this not speak of what kind of people are in the hardware "enthusiast" community? Many of you act more like rednecks than experts. You whine like a bunch of 8 year olds finding out PeeWee Herman was arrested for masturbating in public, whenever test results don't show you what you want to see. You sound like the people who still claim "OJ didn't do it". I'd be surprised you didn't hold nVidia responsible for killing 3DFX and boycott them, except that this was likely before your time.

Instead of trying to make THG into an AMDZone or Viahardware, why not direct your comments toward making the site more cutting edge, making the charts simpler and easier to read, making improvements in their comparisons? Why are you even here if all you can do is cry, instead of making constructive suggestions?

If you're among this group of quasi enthusiast who can't take a little criticism, please leave now, I'm tired of your arguments.

You want to hear a valid suggestion for improving THG? How about this: THG, Pleas quit promoting SFF cubes! Thank you!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Captain Obvious recommends Crashman take 2 asprin and go lie down!

<b><font color=red>Captain Obvious To The Rescue!!!</font color=red></b>
 

rain_king_uk

Distinguished
Nov 5, 2002
229
0
18,680
0
I kind of agree - I don't think there is a massive conspiracy theory, if anything it's more likely the reviewer in question fell for the temptation Intel presented him with by giving him an unlocked CPU sample (that wasn't a coincidence).

However, you have to admit some of the decisions made in how to present the THG review, plus some of the actual numbers they came up with and the benchmarks they chose to emphasise, look a little fishy when compared to several other reputable hardware sites out there though don't you?

Personally I didn't really give all that much credit to the THG review after I weighed it against many other sources out there - I don't think it was very well balanced, kind of like the recent video card guide. This is more a reflection of the reviewers THG is employing than THG itself.
 

SJJM

Distinguished
Aug 7, 2003
228
0
18,680
0
I love your name and how you are using it. It is just to funny, or I have had to much to drink.

<font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue> :cool:
 

SJJM

Distinguished
Aug 7, 2003
228
0
18,680
0
The thing is that crash man and I have pointed out the test are very close. The only difference is that they include the 3.4 and 3.6 p4 ee. Also thier is another site that does have the 3.4 p4 ee on it and they compare it to a oc a64. Guess what they are very close to the same score.
So I don't understand why you think that thg is so wrong.

<font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue> :cool:
 

pitsi

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2003
650
0
18,980
0
First, let me tell you (as I already mentioned in another post) that for me, it doesn't matter which is faster. I can't afford either one so at least for now, I don't care! My next upgrade won't be before Christmas 2004, even later than that.

But the reason I started the thread "THG vs Rest of the world" is because as an enthousiast, I am trying to find out what's going on here. And what I see is all major hardware review sites praise A64 for its performance, with THG being the only exception. It's also the only site that has declared P4EE as the clear winner. So I ask my self. Who is right? THG or everyone else (Ace's, Hardocp, X-bit Labs, Anand, Tech-Report ...)?

Also this brings back in my memory that when the 5900 Ultra was reviewd, THG was one of the 3-4 sites that actually reccomended 5900U over 9800P. Which as time passes by (and even then), is proved to be the wrong conclusion.
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Editor
As for the scores, lets look to recent history: Most sites claim the Abit IS7 is a top performer. Tom's puts it near the bottom. With so many others at the top, could it be that ALL those companies bribed Tom's to diss the IS7? Wouldn't it be more likely that Tom's simply configured the systems a bit differently than the other reviewers?

I think the differences between the FX-51 and 3.2EE are small. I think these differences are similar to what I've seen on other sites. Some sites show the FX-51 winning more benchmarks than the 3.2EE. Most show the oposite, but to a smaller extent than THG (like 11-9 instead of 32-15). None seem to use as MANY tests as THG did. So could it be that Tom's just used slightly different configurations, and often used additional benchmarks? Doesn't this seem likely?

I think the THG article conclusion was a little more likely to favor the winner, while some other sites had the P4 winning a few more benchmarks but the A64 sounding better in the conclusion. And a few sites had the FX winning, yes, but that's not as common.

Overall I think the way the information was presented is what pisses the most people off. IF the conclusion would have said "A64 Wins!" and then explained away the FX-51 loosing benchmarks by stating it was better for supporting future 64-bit applications, and the A64 better because of its lower price, than the 3.2C...many people would have hailed THG as heros!

But they presented the truth: 64 bit is not here, and probably won't be significant for a very long time. You can't explain away the performance difference if you don't go for the 64-bit hype!

But I'm <b>glad</b> some people buy into the 64-bit hype, because these early adopters will pave the way towards the NEXT generation of programs, for the NEXT generation of CPU!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Toms Hardware says the P4-EE is better overall.
Tech Report says the FX is better.

Captain Obvious says read as many reviews as you can and take the average!

<b><font color=red>Captain Obvious To The Rescue!!!</font color=red></b>
 

Atolsammeek

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,112
0
19,280
0
Well here the thing. Read More then one review. It like Reading Athlon64 on Amd site or Ietel Site. To get More of a Fact. Thing I did was Read about 7 Reviews And amd seems to do better In some things And Intel dose better in other things. But each Site dose things differnt. Tweaks and such.

I was not going for Overclocking for I dont want a heater I want a computer. And With computers So Fast right now Who Bloody cares about %3 We will not a See a change.

But One thing Intel and Amd has it Stranghs And weakness. And buying the Cpu. it depends on what you do.
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Editor
I use Anandtech as my primary source of benchmarks. It looks like the P4 3.2EE edges out the FX-51 there. But Anandtech downplays this even further. I believe it's politically correct to support AMD whenever possible, when you have a group of rabid fanatics as your major income source, THG has yet to take this advice.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Editor
Oh, THG had also said the 5900U was faster than the 9800 Pro. This was true at the time, in DX8 it IS faster. When the DX9 debacle broke, THG was right there with the rest showing nVidia's faults.

Lest we forget THG has also been accused of being ATI biased.

It seems like every review looks biased, no matter which brand wins. Perhaps that's because THG isn't using political correctness in downplaying any leads by one brand or another.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
 

BirdRobin

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2003
277
0
18,780
0
Well i will like to wait till intel openly responds to the A64s, it will be nice to watch wad else intel has up its sleeves besides the p4 ee...
 

BirdRobin

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2003
277
0
18,780
0
It seems the THG review says that the A64 FX is faster in games... AMD also claims that it is faster.. But the P4s are faster in other aspects... we have to decide ourslves in the end which one is more of a upgrade for the individual...
 

CaptainNemo

Distinguished
Jun 19, 2002
245
0
18,680
0
I don't believe THG is biased, but I've had enough of the verbose reviews and the crap columns. The fanbus review was taking the piss; what next, fan guards?

I'll wait for the dust to settle before making my next move (i.e. a consensus needs to form), but conspiracy theories are silly.

"Some mice have two buttons. Macintosh has one. So it's extremely difficult to push the wrong button." - Apple ad. circa 1984.
 

Grub

Distinguished
Aug 30, 2002
2,814
0
20,780
0
I agree with you Crash. A lot of people would not like the news that A64 is a marginal success if at all. Ergo, most hardware sites are telling you what you want to hear. Its called spin...You take the facts and make them say what you want. Case in point...ther hysteria we've seen this morning about "toms is biased, I'm leaving toms, toms is the devil, the sky is falling" . Tom denounced the A64 for what it was... less than stellar, and the anti-Tom's rhetoric starts flowing...wow...

Scamtron doesn't like my sig...
 

Ncogneto

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,245
0
19,780
0
Well lets clarify things. First off we are comparing a processor that we can buy today against a paper tiger. You can't get a p4 emergency edition at the moment so whats the point? for this reason alone all comparisons should be made between using the p4 3.2 standard edition processor. In all likelyhood, when the p4 EE becomes available in quantity a faster A64fx will be able to be had. If AMd were to send THG a A64FX clocked at 2.8 GHz with 4 meg of cache and tell THG it will be released sometime Q1 2004 should Tom's use it to test against the p4 EE? After all in effect this is exactly what Intel did. Intel cannot claim to be the current leader when you can't buy the product period.

Now a question. Did THG actually have 3 EE processors or did they overclock the p4 3.2 EE?

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
 

slvr_phoenix

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
6,223
0
25,780
0
I just want to say that I completely agree with you Crashman.

And unlike Omid, you <i>really</i> know how to rant well. Maybe THG should hire you to do their opinionated columns and kick Omid to the curb.

Oh, and also compare the P4's memory bandwidth at THG to it's bandwidth at Anandtech. Something strange this way comes...

<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>
* Edit: Added Omid line.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by slvr_phoenix on 09/24/03 09:48 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

panabob

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2003
25
0
18,530
0
Now a question. Did THG actually have 3 EE processors or did they overclock the p4 3.2 EE?
They had an engineering sample so that the multiplier was unlocked. So raise multi, keep same FSB, and claim you have a 3.4 or 3.6 or whatever you want. Same thing as in the photoshoped "Hot Contraband" P4 @ 3.6Ghz from a while back that did THE MOST to discredit THG. My point is, since the P4 EE will be available in November @ 3.2Ghz, running it at 3.4Ghz and 3.6Ghz is in fact overclocking a CPU that may never even be available at that speed, period.

Intel cannot claim to be the current leader when you can't buy the product period.
Yup. After being on top for so long, Intel fanboys, particulalry Eden and Spud, are puking now on this forum instead of just sucking it up for a short time untill Prescott comes or they can buy a P4 EE for Christmass.
 

Ncogneto

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,245
0
19,780
0
They had an engineering sample so that the multiplier was unlocked. So raise multi, keep same FSB, and claim you have a 3.4 or 3.6 or whatever you want.

Are you sure of this? If so, I am really LMAO at the total ivalidity of this review. I mean what the hell, why not overclock the A64FX as well if you are trying to keep an even playing field.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
 

ChipDeath

Splendid
May 16, 2002
4,307
0
22,790
2
They had an engineering sample so that the multiplier was unlocked. So raise multi, keep same FSB, and claim you have a 3.4 or 3.6 or whatever you want. Same thing as in the photoshoped "Hot Contraband" P4 @ 3.6Ghz from a while back
Did they use a 3.6 and claim it was a 3.2/3.4/anything else?
No.
Did they lie about it being available now?
No.
Did they include it to show :
a)how well the EE scales up?
b)how the A64 would fare against a processor that <i>might</i> be released by the time the A64 is available in meaningful quantities?
Yes.

Stop your bloody whingeing and accept it. They did nothing wrong by including this chip. if someone casually glances at the review and assumes the top bar is a 3.2EE P4, then that's entirely their own fault, not Tom's. I personally was interested to see how a P4EE would perform at that speed, should one be released.

---
<font color=red>The preceding text is assembled from information stored in an unreliable organic storage medium. As such it may be innacurate, incomplete, or completely wrong</font color=red> :wink:
 

ChipDeath

Splendid
May 16, 2002
4,307
0
22,790
2
have you even read the review? There are more chips than just an overclocked P4EE and an A64 included you know...

---
<font color=red>The preceding text is assembled from information stored in an unreliable organic storage medium. As such it may be innacurate, incomplete, or completely wrong</font color=red> :wink:
 

eden

Champion
Well lets clarify things. First off we are comparing a processor that we can buy today against a paper tiger. You can't get a p4 emergency edition at the moment so whats the point? for this reason alone all comparisons should be made between using the p4 3.2 standard edition processor. In all likelyhood, when the p4 EE becomes available in quantity a faster A64fx will be able to be had. If AMd were to send THG a A64FX clocked at 2.8 GHz with 4 meg of cache and tell THG it will be released sometime Q1 2004 should Tom's use it to test against the p4 EE? After all in effect this is exactly what Intel did. Intel cannot claim to be the current leader when you can't buy the product period.
That could not have been any more absurd. I suppose when the XP2600+ was paper launched, THG didn't use it later when it was never available, same as the XP2800+ huh?

Well well well:

<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020909/p4_3600-08.html#audiovideo_benchmarks" target="_new">http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020909/p4_3600-08.html#audiovideo_benchmarks</A>

A month later and the XP2600+ is featured.

<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021114/p4_306ht-14.html" target="_new">http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021114/p4_306ht-14.html</A>
My oh my! The XP2800+ which never came out until months later, is on the graphs!

Gee, I suppose THG deserves slapping.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol:
 

HardWareBoss

Splendid
Feb 9, 2003
8,248
0
30,780
0
Right on. I've had enough of the whining Cry babies. So Intel puts out Xeon clone? Whats FX51 but an Opertron clone. So is Intel to sit by and not offer the same thing? That's what compation is all about.
 

coolsquirtle

Distinguished
Jan 4, 2003
2,717
0
20,780
0
i agree.

I dont understand some people. They get all upset because the company they love sucked. I mean, do u have stocks in that company? (i do for nVidia)

RIP Block Heater....HELLO P4~~~~~
120% nVidia Fanboy
PROUD OWNER OF THE GEFORCE FX 5950ULTRA <-- I wish this was me
waiting for aBox~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS