Ok, i know there are already 2 threads about this topic (which a childish debate over whose post was the first to go through the incredibly slow THG forum server), but here's another.
First, i want to address the whining over voltage. People are moaning and griping about the fact that Intel has raised core voltages in the 2.6, 2.66, 2.50, and 2.80 to 1.525 volts (up from 1.5 volts). Even the THG article about the 2.8 Ghz mentions it (almost as a sarcastic punch to the 2.8 chip). First of all, can I say shut up? I think most of those comments simply comes from miffed fanboys who are trying to deny that the 2.8 beats the 2600. The 1.525V is still lower than the 2600 voltage of 1.65V and has come down a lot since the p4 1.7, 1.8, etc. voltage of 1.7V (or 1.75V). So quit the whining, it's getting old. Both companies have to try to reduce power consumption increases with each new generation, true (the real barrier to Moore's Law - it's not how small you can make the parts, but how hot they will run at and how much power they will consume that is the big problem), but i don't see a reason to jump and point and scream at a .025 increase 2.53 -> 2.8 is 10.7% speed increase (Mhz wise, not performance wise, i know), and .025 Volts is only a 1.67% increase. Not too shabby I suppose.
Anyway, once again, I'd like to say Tom's a little biased. Can everyone else see how the 2.8 simply whomps on the 2600? I mean, I'm not reading these benchmarks wrong, am I? It seems that when AMD comes out with something that beats the top Intel chip (the 2600 was and is still comparable to the 2.53, not really a true winner), this guide is first to applaud AMD and comment on (without mentioning anything regarding price, memory, etc.) that it's just plain and simple the fastest processor you can buy. But when flipped (for instance...today), it's hesitently said that the Intel proc is the best, the king, the crown holder. Tom undercuts the win by mentioning the upcoming release date of the 2800 and price vs. performance (or even by pointing out that Intel uses faster RDRAM, where AMD uses DDR - AMD's crutch, not Intel's unfair business decision, lol). If you're going to award speed crowns, let it just be speed crowns. If you're going to be a guide to tell consumers which chip is best to buy, then do more research on that aspect (instead of so many quake3 and Sandra charts, show some charts of pricing at different places online and in stores). Consistency in doing these reviews is the most important thing, IMO. Granted, a lot of us care about video card speeds, hard drive capabilities, and those cool looking computers the size of toasters, but isn't the most looked at aspect of THG the chip review section? I think it is...
Finally, can i say that the 2600 release was a little sneaky. *looks at pricewatch*...where are the 2400 and 2600's? *looks harder* I don't know. I can't see them
But the 2.8 is there, even if on paper it was released a week later than the 2600. I wonder when a consumer will actually be able to see a fabled 2600? AMD's site lists "world-wide availability" at end of september. So i wonder...will they say they have released the Hammer in q1, 03, which then means they made ONE and it can only be tested internally, and then full availability will be in 04? Honestly...if they really were trying to just hit mid-market, they'd market their chips more honestly (that almost sounds like a palindrome, lol).
There's my uh....4 cents
Athlons and Pentiums are just melted rock. Who’s rock is better? Who cares, let’s play some games
First, i want to address the whining over voltage. People are moaning and griping about the fact that Intel has raised core voltages in the 2.6, 2.66, 2.50, and 2.80 to 1.525 volts (up from 1.5 volts). Even the THG article about the 2.8 Ghz mentions it (almost as a sarcastic punch to the 2.8 chip). First of all, can I say shut up? I think most of those comments simply comes from miffed fanboys who are trying to deny that the 2.8 beats the 2600. The 1.525V is still lower than the 2600 voltage of 1.65V and has come down a lot since the p4 1.7, 1.8, etc. voltage of 1.7V (or 1.75V). So quit the whining, it's getting old. Both companies have to try to reduce power consumption increases with each new generation, true (the real barrier to Moore's Law - it's not how small you can make the parts, but how hot they will run at and how much power they will consume that is the big problem), but i don't see a reason to jump and point and scream at a .025 increase 2.53 -> 2.8 is 10.7% speed increase (Mhz wise, not performance wise, i know), and .025 Volts is only a 1.67% increase. Not too shabby I suppose.
Anyway, once again, I'd like to say Tom's a little biased. Can everyone else see how the 2.8 simply whomps on the 2600? I mean, I'm not reading these benchmarks wrong, am I? It seems that when AMD comes out with something that beats the top Intel chip (the 2600 was and is still comparable to the 2.53, not really a true winner), this guide is first to applaud AMD and comment on (without mentioning anything regarding price, memory, etc.) that it's just plain and simple the fastest processor you can buy. But when flipped (for instance...today), it's hesitently said that the Intel proc is the best, the king, the crown holder. Tom undercuts the win by mentioning the upcoming release date of the 2800 and price vs. performance (or even by pointing out that Intel uses faster RDRAM, where AMD uses DDR - AMD's crutch, not Intel's unfair business decision, lol). If you're going to award speed crowns, let it just be speed crowns. If you're going to be a guide to tell consumers which chip is best to buy, then do more research on that aspect (instead of so many quake3 and Sandra charts, show some charts of pricing at different places online and in stores). Consistency in doing these reviews is the most important thing, IMO. Granted, a lot of us care about video card speeds, hard drive capabilities, and those cool looking computers the size of toasters, but isn't the most looked at aspect of THG the chip review section? I think it is...
Finally, can i say that the 2600 release was a little sneaky. *looks at pricewatch*...where are the 2400 and 2600's? *looks harder* I don't know. I can't see them
But the 2.8 is there, even if on paper it was released a week later than the 2600. I wonder when a consumer will actually be able to see a fabled 2600? AMD's site lists "world-wide availability" at end of september. So i wonder...will they say they have released the Hammer in q1, 03, which then means they made ONE and it can only be tested internally, and then full availability will be in 04? Honestly...if they really were trying to just hit mid-market, they'd market their chips more honestly (that almost sounds like a palindrome, lol).
There's my uh....4 cents
Athlons and Pentiums are just melted rock. Who’s rock is better? Who cares, let’s play some games