MORE PROOF OF TOMS HARDWARE BIAS

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
i have too, been following THG for quite a while already, and already knew about the things that you've mentioned.

however, you're saying that that particular article is intel-biased.

i would say you're too quick to judge. you're probably affected by the fact that they have all along been intel-biased to give a neutral enough stand and look at the article.

i still dont see anything wrong with the article. it seems fair enough for me.
 
I shouldn't have to remind you either that AMD's CEO has already publicly admitted that AMD dropped the ball on the mobile market.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure. Coming from Toms hardware guide, I wouldn't expect more from them to put words on AMD's CEO. 8)

Microprocessor Solutions Sector, said AMD's 64-bit dual-core part will support DDR2 memory and include virtualization and multicore power management when it ships.
Click to expand...
All of this fits in the socket 754 infrastructure and will also feature dual channel.
8)
http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/dailyarchives.jhtml?articleId=181501433
 
i feel the same exact way as u, he got his account a bit after me i think, and he has over double the posts. ive been in debates with him before... i took the side that dell makes decent computers at some of the lowest prices (dont even start to flame guys) and he said dell sucks because he took apart one, broke it, and tried to get a refund. i was argueing that the new conroe sound like theyll be faster than amd, and he refused to even take what i said as a valid opinion, hed come at me with how his life is hard? (dun ask me, thats pretty much what happened) and hed say how amd has always beat intel, but up until amd64 was released amd has been behind. the best thing to do is ignore him till he leaves, or have an admin ban him... :lol:
 
There you go, that is a nice post. I have not done any fact checking on what you have said which is not good on my part but if what you gave as an example with the mobo switching, hsf switching, is indeed true that is going a little too far out of the way to get the results that the testers wanted. However I haven’t read that article so I do not know the reasons Toms gave for the switching.

I am making huge assumptions about your facts giving you the benefit of doubt that I think everyone deserves. But the real point is you put up a good defense of your view and if you did this all the time people would have more respect for you and your opinions, be they right or wrong. It is that respect that helps everyone out because communication is improved and a solution can be found quicker. After all forums are places of problems that need solving.
 
Did you guys had a look at the front page?

Here's a quote:
Visitors at IDF got a first taste of what Intel is capable of, once you wake it up. Thus far, its demos have left no doubt that Merom and its derivatives - Conroe on the desktop and Woodcrest on the server side - are monster systems that promise to beat every other processor on the market, in terms of both performance and efficiency.
Click to expand...

This is clear proof of how these guys get excited at any little propaganda Intel throws at them.
link

Now, here's a quote about the Turion X2:
It's worth noting that AMD apparently does not intend for Turion X2 to attain any sort of performance or power savings goal. Rooney confirmed that AMD's primary goal with the new processor is achieve more design wins, and get more OEMs on board to integrate the processor into product plans. AMD currently boasts of about 10.9% market share in the notebook space.
Click to expand...
They asume this because they don't have the specs of the chip. I read the whole article and there's no sign of Rooney saying something like that (and I doubt he did since AMD would fire him immediately).
link

go away
 
There you go, that is a nice post. I have not done any fact checking on what you have said which is not good on my part but if what you gave as an example with the mobo switching, hsf switching, is indeed true that is going a little too far out of the way to get the results that the testers wanted. However I haven’t read that article so I do not know the reasons Toms gave for the switching.

I am making huge assumptions about your facts giving you the benefit of doubt that I think everyone deserves. But the real point is you put up a good defense of your view and if you did this all the time people would have more respect for you and your opinions, be they right or wrong. It is that respect that helps everyone out because communication is improved and a solution can be found quicker. After all forums are places of problems that need solving.
Click to expand...

You pointed out some good advice that would make the world a better place to co-exist! Good job! :wink:
 
In reading this little excerpt, it doesn’t sound like that mobo switching was an attempt to give the Intel the advantage. It seemed as un-prejudice as possible. Stating Intel did better here, here, and here and AMD did better here, here, and here. If you want this go with the Intel if you want that go with the AMD. Seems fine to me..
 
I bet you had a hard time finding those. :wink:
I'll quote on of your findings:
So, what to buy when you need a top system for a nice sum? For business use, the Intel system should be the better choice, especially in view of its availability as well as the already existing service from Intel partners and system vendors.
Click to expand...
So, here they're promoting Intel for business. Where do they leave AMD??
This kind of assumptions makes "joe-sixpack" believes that AMD is not good for business environments and that's a blatant lie.

"When looking at absolute computing power, or performance, different views are needed. When running multiple applications simultaneously on a system, the Intel system with the Pentium 840 EE surpasses the competition from AMD
Click to expand...
After running the tests and seing Intel's EE840 failed in the other 3 tests but exceeds in video encoding, they conclude that the EE840 is better for multitasking????
yeah, sure. :wink:

Keep finding more of those, you make my life easier. 8)
 
9-inch:

You know what they say about opinions: mine is always right.

We're all very happy to see that you have decided that TG is Intel-bias. For every point you make, and Intel fan will makean equally compelling counterpoint, and vise-versa.

You're just beating your head against a wall pushing this.
 
Kind of strange to me that folks argue passionately which 'for profit' company is better than which 'for profit' company. I'm not against companies making a profit, but to have customers imagine they have joined the "team" of one or the other of these profit making firms is silly.

How does it happen that folks begin to personally identify with hardware enough to argue about it? It never occured to me to do that. Its hardware....not religion! It either does the job for you or it doesn't.

I read Toms and Anand's sites to learn about equipment, and then I buy, build, modify, overclock, etc. based on learning I get from these sites. Both sites serve a great purpose that I appreciate.

Bob
 
Dude, what's the big deal of that statement? They are just simply making a conclusion of what they saw at the IDF.

Nothing biased about that statement at all. Now, go to class and put on your dunce cap
Click to expand...

It wouldn't surprise me if you didn't answer the way you did. Opps, I forgot you were an Intel fanboy that uses an Opteron to hide his fanboyism towards Intel. :wink:

Anyhow, it's Toms credibility in the tech community in risk here.
There will be a time when no one would ever read their biased articles.

9-inch,

Go get Dvdpiddy and have your self an AMD fanboys bitch session. Intel has finally coming out with something that is a strong product and now your thinking you might be on the wrong side. Get a life and more so go marry Dvdpiddy. Since he acts like a woman, you should be made for yourselves.

Damn man, after Intel released those fake benchmarks, it seems every single Intel Troll has come outta the wood works to flame AMD, sheesh, and they tell us to grow up lol.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

Flame? your BS about how "good" your amd is and saying how crap intels are and now some real benchmarks come out your getting all shitted cause intel now leads - cant you take it?

geez man 90% of us want a faster system and intel has now provided the solution - doesnt matter what brand aslong as its fast, and when i say that you say im a fanboy? your the fanboy here.
 
You know what they say about opinions: mine is always right.

We're all very happy to see that you have decided that TG is Intel-bias. For every point you make, and Intel fan will makean equally compelling counterpoint, and vise-versa.

You're just beating your head against a wall pushing this
Click to expand...

The problem I'm trying you guys to see is that Toms Hardware is a hardware review site which can influence peoples buying decissions.

The other day, a friend of mine told me that he was going to buy a Pentium D 820 processor because he read at Toms Hardware that the processor was cheaper and performed "better" than an Athlon 64 3800+. I told him it was OK for him to buy the processor if "cheapness" is what he wanted, but there's no way in the world a Pentium D performs better than any of AMD's dual core processors. This is the kind of information that pist me off since it misleads many people who comes to this site for some help on their buying decissions.

This is just a personal thought. Everyone has free of speech so I'm doing good use of it. maybe, some of the editors/reviewers are reading this and I hope they consider and rethink about all the damage they've done to everyone that wants an AMD rig or uses AMD.


Flame? your BS about how "good" your amd is and saying how crap intels are and now some real benchmarks come out your getting all shitted cause intel now leads - cant you take it?
Click to expand...
Lead in benchmarks made by Intel with a cherry-picked Conroe processor. Yeah, sure.

Once the thing comes out to market and EVERY one has a FULL review of it vs AM2, then I'll pay more attention to any benchmarks. Until now, everything is just Intel's way to do propaganda. :wink:
 
You are right on all of your statements.

I was saying the same thing about them a while ago and instead of gratitude, I got banned. Just be careful.
 
ltcommander_data said:
The fastest model will run at 2GHz and none of them will have 1MB of L2 cache. It seems to me that based on those specs, AMD's top 2GHz X2 won't be able to lead the 2.33GHz Core Duo in performance.
Click to expand...
Hmm... This is a bunch of bologna... U know that AMD doesnt need clock speed and L2 cache to beat Intel's. May i direct you to a website, And compare the X2 4800, and the Pentium D 950.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=233&model2=320&chart=63

Now Tell me who has a higher Frequency? Also who has more L2 cache? Now once u answered those tell me who has the lead in all of the fields except 3 out of 28. As you can see your point which is in my quote serves no purpose in proving AMDs performance. So dont just say stuff cus thats what u think, dont just specualte. We will see which is better when they come out. Mabey the intel WILL win, or mabey the intel will lose... dont use information if u cant back it up. Also even the X2 4600, which has 1/4 L2 cache, and a lower frequency, Only loses to the PENTIUM D 950, in 4 out of 28. Not only that but both 4800 and 4600 are cheaper.

As for the bias part of our story. I do feel that THG is SLIGHTY leaning towards intel. But not enough to anger me and goto another websight.
Click to expand...
 
theres a huge difference between the old pentiums and the new ones, they are much better, as good as intel says? i doubt it. better than amd? probably, since intel really dont want to fall behind again and lose more market share there gonna try there best to stomp amd in the ground, cornoe may do this while using less power and making less heat. both platforms look promising though. but IMO... with the little info i know abotu the 2, intel seems to be taking a small lead... but theres no need to argue because neither are even released yet, so stop bitching and acting like u guys know it all, u know very very little about the processors, so saying that one is better and backing it up with basically beta processors is nothing but a fanboy comment. although i did say i think intel will pull ahead :roll: ... just because there using a mobile design in the new cores so they will use much less energy, produce less heat, and i hear they will be ocing gods. amd on the other hand, wont be able to break 3.0ghz on 90nm, at 65 though, who knows maybe 4ghz will be the ceiling, yes i know clock speeds dont matter anymore. i think since intel will be using 65nm and a mobile processor design they will win in the energy and heat sections, as for perforamnce..... lets wait instead of flaming.
 
I remember a time not too long ago listening to the Intel fans complaining that THG is completely AMD bias, even going so far as to accuse Tom of [Sarcasm] *gasp* Taking AMD money for advertisement. [/Sarcasm]

That was during the early Athlon days, when THG was reporting that AMD had better architecture, better performance per clock, and that Intel's P4 series was destined for mediocrity due to a poor design being covered up by high clock speeds.

I would say there may be a few reviewers here that are biased toward AMD, some that are toward Intel, and even at least one that is about as unbiased as you can be in this type of comparison.

Regardless - sit back, grab a beverage of your choice, and enjoy the show - it's going to be an interesting year for the CPU battle, and I for one am looking forward to every minute.

I built systems for 11 years in various shops. Through those years, I've seen AMD come in with great chips, and come in with horrible chips (anyone remember the K6-2? *shudder*) I've seen Intel come in consistently strong in most areas, and charge so much for their chips it made me sick to use them. There was a time I REFUSED to own an Intel system for the simple reason that I could not justify paying 2-3x more for a chip that ran 95% as fast as the top of the line Intel (when they had the speed crown).

Now that AMD has that crown firmly on it's head (and I won't believe it's removed until I see 3rd party benchmarks claiming that the king is dead), we see the tables turn. No longer is AMD so worried about the value of their chips, and suddenly Intel is being force to price competitively, build more efficient chips, better architecture, etc.

This war has been GREAT for us - the users. Without it, where would the processor world be?

It used to be that AMD was saying "Our chip may not be faster in MHz, but it's faster PER MHz. And our fastest may not beat Intel's fastest, but it costs half as much and uses half the power!

Now, Intel is claiming the more efficient processor per clock cycle, the lowest power, and are planning on pricing it at half of AMD's current top offering.

Give it time... I have a feeling it will return full circle.

IDEV - Former hardcore AMD fanboy - still really like the chips, but long for the past when they were cheaper.
 
Did you guys had a look at the front page?

Here's a quote:
Visitors at IDF got a first taste of what Intel is capable of, once you wake it up. Thus far, its demos have left no doubt that Merom and its derivatives - Conroe on the desktop and Woodcrest on the server side - are monster systems that promise to beat every other processor on the market, in terms of both performance and efficiency.
Click to expand...

This is clear proof of how these guys get excited at any little propaganda Intel throws at them.
link

Now, here's a quote about the Turion X2:
It's worth noting that AMD apparently does not intend for Turion X2 to attain any sort of performance or power savings goal. Rooney confirmed that AMD's primary goal with the new processor is achieve more design wins, and get more OEMs on board to integrate the processor into product plans. AMD currently boasts of about 10.9% market share in the notebook space.
Click to expand...
They asume this because they don't have the specs of the chip. I read the whole article and there's no sign of Rooney saying something like that (and I doubt he did since AMD would fire him immediately).
link maybe i think that all these hardware sites bias toward intel for their kickbacks well 9-inch it looks like its me you and mike to fight the good fight
 
maybe i think that all these hardware sites bias toward intel for their kickbacks well 9-inch it looks like its me you and mike to fight the good fight
Click to expand...

What good fight? Trying to convince someone to never buy an Intel again? You are what I would call a hypocrite, you bash Intel fans about their undying loyalty to Intel, but what are you doing? Same thing, just replace the word Intel with AMD.

I will not fight to prove one chip better than the other. I always choose which processor will give the best performance, and sometimes it is Intel, othertimes AMD.
 
maybe i think that all these hardware sites bias toward intel for their kickbacks well 9-inch it looks like its me you and mike to fight the good fight
Click to expand...

What good fight? Trying to convince someone to never buy an Intel again? You are what I would call a hypocrite, you bash Intel fans about their undying loyalty to Intel, but what are you doing? Same thing, just replace the word Intel with AMD.

I will not fight to prove one chip better than the other. I always choose which processor will give the best performance, and sometimes it is Intel, othertimes AMD. yes thats the good fight intel sucks and dude beware of what you say cause i'll find you :twisted:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom