So THG decides to put up an article about energy savings, great....
but when they choose their components a vein popped in my head...
regarding an energy based article:
The cpu components tom's chose:
"AMD's Athlon 64 is a well-known and powerful specimen. We picked the 4000+ model at 2.4 GHz and 1 MB L2 cache memory"
but for the other side:
"Intel ships the 500 and the 600 Pentium 4 series, while the latter is by far more interesting." (far more interesting to choose the new improved Intel cpu with obviously addressed power savings while FU**ING USING THE OLD 130NM HAMMER for the A64?! ever heard of the "far more interesting" Winchester/San Diego/Venice cores which are abundantly available for the desktop since end 2004 even before the Pentium 6xx series?! no because THG seems to have their heads too far up intel's asses to get any logic in an article right...
OMG I never expected such incompetence and ignorace... Someone plz do this test the right way, because almost nobody is recommending or selling an Newcastle/Hammer A64 Cpu anymore.
Every enthusiast or hardware supportforum (Guru3d, Anands, HA, Techspot, ExpertExhange, NXS, Extremesystems including popular magazines like pcworld, maxpc, pcmag. etc etc etc) recommends using AMD's NEWER (and readily AVAILABLE) 90nm cores. why does only THG act if the A64 only is on 130NM, while the Prescott (intel's 90nm) got whole articles and reviews compared to the northwood (130nm).
anyone seen a Venice vs Winchester, Winchester vs (claw/sledge)Hhammer/Newcastle comparison on THG?
Stop this obvious Bias and Incompetence. It hurts our intelligence and the once great respect for THG even more!!
/end rant
but when they choose their components a vein popped in my head...
regarding an energy based article:
The cpu components tom's chose:
"AMD's Athlon 64 is a well-known and powerful specimen. We picked the 4000+ model at 2.4 GHz and 1 MB L2 cache memory"
but for the other side:
"Intel ships the 500 and the 600 Pentium 4 series, while the latter is by far more interesting." (far more interesting to choose the new improved Intel cpu with obviously addressed power savings while FU**ING USING THE OLD 130NM HAMMER for the A64?! ever heard of the "far more interesting" Winchester/San Diego/Venice cores which are abundantly available for the desktop since end 2004 even before the Pentium 6xx series?! no because THG seems to have their heads too far up intel's asses to get any logic in an article right...
OMG I never expected such incompetence and ignorace... Someone plz do this test the right way, because almost nobody is recommending or selling an Newcastle/Hammer A64 Cpu anymore.
Every enthusiast or hardware supportforum (Guru3d, Anands, HA, Techspot, ExpertExhange, NXS, Extremesystems including popular magazines like pcworld, maxpc, pcmag. etc etc etc) recommends using AMD's NEWER (and readily AVAILABLE) 90nm cores. why does only THG act if the A64 only is on 130NM, while the Prescott (intel's 90nm) got whole articles and reviews compared to the northwood (130nm).
anyone seen a Venice vs Winchester, Winchester vs (claw/sledge)Hhammer/Newcastle comparison on THG?
Stop this obvious Bias and Incompetence. It hurts our intelligence and the once great respect for THG even more!!
/end rant