Intel hit 1 ghz first?

[endyen]

This may be a better example.
Anand did a review of the P4 670.
In the 32 benchmarks, the FX55 beat it 21 to 11.
Now the cpu chart doesn't have the 670, but it does have the 660.
How do you think it did in the 31 benches offered there?
The FX chip won 15, the 660 won 16.
Is that just margin of error?

 

[Steele]

First of all, I count the AMD chip winning over the 660 on the THG benchmarks 15-14. Second, the AMD processors involved were on different mainboards (THG - K8T800, Anand - NForce 4 Reference), likely using different components as well. Third, each site offers a different suite of benchmarks, focusing on different areas of performance.

Couple all of this with the margin of error, and your comparision is completely meaningless.

For example, I can drive 1 mile in about 50 seconds, given the maximum speed of my truck on a flat paved road. I would wager a guess that the fastest runner who ever lived could run a mile in no less than three minutes on an oval running track. Does that make me faster than him? Sortof. Should that be something for me to be proud of? Not at all. See the problems in the situation? All else being equal, the runner would outdistance me easily.

Now, you could argue that THG's benchmarks are picked to allow the Pentium chip to perform better, but beyond that, you're really reaching.

Steele

 

[endyen]

Now, you could argue that THG's benchmarks are picked to allow the Pentium chip to perform better,

Bingo!!
Seriously, would you rather have an FX55, or aP4 660?
Any comparison between the two is silly. Sure, the FX is overpriced, and not good value, but the 660 is overhot, underpowered, and horrible value.
Every time a bit comes up, Intel gets that little extra, and Amd takes one on the chin.
Does Tom's come out and say Intel isGod? No, but they go the extra distance to prove it in little bits.
I dragged up an old thread for you. It's called "Stress Test Mark 11"
Read it, then ask yourself, what lengths would Tom's go to support Intel.

 

[Steele]

I read the thread you showed me... or parts of it, anyway. 36 pages is a lot to read... I don't think I would say that it proves THG's Intel-bias, but I do see how that could be interpreted.

About the chip comparision, I would much rather have an FX-55, but that's based on the hardware I own plus my own biases at work. I do see the point you're making, however, even if I disagree with it.

Steele

 

[Teh_Catman]

THG - K8T800, Anand - NForce 4 Reference

Enough said, anyone with a brain (other than OEMS no brains there) would never put an AMD on a Via chipset thats just asking for trouble.

Edit: fixed the quote. Also AMD + VIA = Big stupid sticker on your forhead.

 

[mpjesse]

Despite all that's said, debated, and speculated, I truly believe that this website is not Intel biased. A lot of my friends call me naive and ignorant when I say that, but I believe it to be true.

I've been around this site since 1998... damn near 8 years. This (I believe) was the first true PC enthusiast site to exist. Tomshardware.com is a fixture in the PC World. Everyone (including AMD) covets their awards. Tomshardware is almost always the first enthusiast site to get engineering samples from AMD, Intel, nVidia, and ATI.

Comparitively speaking, Tomshardware benchmarks are almost always in line with anandtech, xihibt, and hardocp. Occassionally they'll be a difference in benches, but for the most part the consensus is the same among all the sites when a new processor, video card, etc comes out.

Does Tomshardware get engineering sample from intel a lot? More than other sites? You bet. But come on, if someone sent you engineering samples of the latest chip would you turn it down? Hell no. You'd install it, bench it, and write about it's strengths and weaknesses. Consider this: 2 times now Tomshardware has been the place where faults in Intel processors were first published. If tomshardware was taking kick backs from intel, do you REALLY think they'd be writing about processor bugs/faults? Hell no. Intel OWES this site and they know it.

For all you AMD fanboys who think Tomshardware is intel biased, consider this: They've been using the Athlon FX-55 and 57 as their primary processor for benchmarking new video cards for a very long time now. Why? Because it's the fastest of course! They know that. If they were truly "biased", they'd be using an P4 EE for everything.

Just my opinion in this silly mess. As far as the processor chart goes- yes it's farked up.

-mpjesse

 

[endyen]

My thread, I set the topic. It is not about who sold the first retail 1ghz chip (Amd SlotA on march 6th 2k) or who overclocked to 1ghz first, as you noted, IBM did.
This thread is about THG making Amd look bad, and Intel look good. It's about the sneaky tricks, like posting a chart that says Amd was still playing with K6-2s when Intel got to 1.1 ghz.
It's about me being pi$$ed at the fanboyism of THG.
Do I care that Intel did a paper launch @ 1ghz, two days after Amd ? Not in the least. Give Intel credit for what they did. Give Amd credit for what they did.