Toms reviews make you stupid

eden · Sep 26, 2003

I was wondering why you were defending THG that much and then I saw : (Honorary Guru of THGC) .

WTF is that supposed to mean?
You come as a stranger and think you know what this means?
You even realize who Crashman is to this forum?

Run along!

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

augustus108 · Sep 26, 2003

Yes, I agree with the gaming part. It is silly.

But the impression that I am getting (PEOPLE: it is an impression upon first read) that the review seem to be almost solely the CPU capacity. Remember, THG is testing the CPU.

System Integration...yeah right, thanks to marketing, more confusion

NMDante · Sep 26, 2003

As for the Athlon 64 : the 3200+ version is in 32bit better in gaming then anything intel has on the market now and its a 100$ cheaper . For applictaions in 32 bit it depends on the application (some won by AMD some by intel) but if you see at how much improvement there is in 64bit ...

Well, that $100 cheaper idea is down the drain when a new motherboard is needed...then another if you want to upgrade, since the Socket 754 will probably be replaced with the 939. So, where is the cost savings of getting an A64-3200, right now? None. And 32-bit apps were suppose to run 10-20% better using A64, and some benchmarks showed differently, didn't they? Not much of an improvement in my opinion. A better direction, but not improvement.

As for the FX-51 it beats the P4 EE 3,2GHz by an avg of 10% . In applications its in general a couple % slower (again it depends on wich aplication you look at) . the price of the FX-51 shoulmd be the same or a bit under the P4 EE .

Again, 10% is great, if they were both new CPU processes, but the A64s were banking on great application processes using 64-bit registers, which didn't play out as well as they hoped. Also, BOTH of these CPUs are priced too high for the average buyer to really need, and if you do get one, it's more for bragging rights than performance.

For people buying a new PC its obvious for low-end mid or high end users its AMD thats the best choice now. Only for those who only run very specific aplications frequently in wich intel is the faster and dont game or do anything else, its intel.

Again, the whole gaming only on AMD thing. That's total crap. I play games, edit video, record TV, and surf, all on a chip you determine is good for only specific apps and don't game. Please. It's also insulting to AMD owners to be labelled as gamers only, and apps are just there.

Both CPUs run games and apps fine, in my opinion. I don't need 100FPS to play a game well, nor do I need something that will calculate a nuclear explosion when balancing my checkbook. At the speeds and power these CPUs are at, it'll be a long time before any program will truly need this much processing power.

If you need A64-FX or even P4EE, go get them.

How many watts does it take to get the center of CPU core?

Guest · Sep 26, 2003

So now you claim BIAS on my part? You can go to hell too. I've met people like you before.

You do ? Kinda doubt that

And yes if you spend a large proportion of your life here its normal you will defend it at all cost. Not blaiming you you know its a perfectly natural reaction.

A guy implies it took an overclocked CPU to win the "competition". The CPU he's refering to insn't overclocked. And you conclude that I'm biased for telling the truth.

didnt base it on 1 reaction

So if I'm not "working for the man" why would I defend him? I get most of my reviews from Anantech. The results of their review were similar to this one. Yet their conclusion was a little gentler on AMD. Fine, and both were good reviews.

So you just read those 2 reviews and made up your mind? Why not read all reviews avaible? Only that way can you get a clear picture .

But we get all kinds of people in here trying to tear this site apart because they don't like what they saw. Even if what they saw was accurate. And I simply don't shy away from confrontation with idiots.

Would be too bad because this is a good site i just dont like there CPU reviews lately not because there bad for AMD but the way they handle to whole review. For the rest this is a very good review site.

Guest · Sep 26, 2003

You come as a stranger and think you know what this means?
You even realize who Crashman is to this forum?

Why do you think I am a stranger? Cause I never posted here? YOu know you can read without posting

And that comment was just that he spend lots of time here, are you going to tell me thats not true?

Guest · Sep 26, 2003

Well, that $100 cheaper idea is down the drain when a new motherboard is needed...then another if you want to upgrade, since the Socket 754 will probably be replaced with the 939.

And for the latest intel's you need also a new motherboard (i875 or sis648 , ...) for the prescott? Wouldnt know anyway perhaps if your thinking on buying a new CPU in a couple months yes then perhaps it is best to just wait and not buy anything.

So, where is the cost savings of getting an A64-3200, right now? None.

Seeing its buying something overpriced you never will be cost saving that would be a 2500+ . But if you want high en / high performance that can last a couple years (like most people want, the part that buys every new CPU is really small you know) then the A64 3200+ is the best for the moment. Perhaps next year it will be different (altough seeing the price for the prescott I doubt it)

And 32-bit apps were suppose to run 10-20% better using A64, and some benchmarks showed differently, didn't they?

Of course some showed different there isnt been 1 processor that ran EVERYTHINH faster i think . In general you can say its a lot better in games and about the same in the rest only for encoding/rendering can you think intel . Oh and I am looking at what the performance/price is you seem to look at what some fanboys tought, kinda a wierd way to buy a CPU.

Not much of an improvement in my opinion. A better direction, but not improvement.

So 5-10% faster and cheaper isnt a big improvement ? Hmm you not easily sataisfied are you?

Again, 10% is great, if they were both new CPU processes, but the A64s were banking on great application processes using 64-bit registers, which didn't play out as well as they hoped. Also, BOTH of these CPUs are priced too high for the average buyer to really need, and if you do get one, it's more for bragging rights than performance.

All those benchmarks were in 32bit how the 64bit will play out is still unknown a couple of hints say it might look good but its too early for that . Oh and the EE not now? Hmm its not even out yet but its already old?

Again, the whole gaming only on AMD thing. That's total crap. I play games, edit video, record TV, and surf, all on a chip you determine is good for only specific apps and don't game. Please. It's also insulting to AMD owners to be labelled as gamers only, and apps are just there.

Euh never did any labeling the reality is that some proc are better for some apllications why not buy the one that suits you? If you go buy a car do you just buy "a car" or do you look at what you need and then go buy it? Same here if you game or just want a processor that runs everything fast and isnt that expensive its AMD you need to look at. Wanna render or edit video : buy an intel,...

Both CPUs run games and apps fine, in my opinion. I don't need 100FPS to play a game well, nor do I need something that will calculate a nuclear explosion when balancing my checkbook. At the speeds and power these CPUs are at, it'll be a long time before any program will truly need this much processing power.

Seen the latest benchmarks for halflife 2? The current video cards can barely get playable framerates a processor that is a bit faster can really help there.

Of course bith run fine but when I spend my hard earned €'s I want the best for the lowest price possible and at this time in most cases thats AMD, yes for the same money you can get a very good intel system but the performance will be a couple % behind

If you need A64-FX or even P4EE, go get them.

Hell no I am happy with my year old AMD 2000+ 🙂

Crashman · Sep 26, 2003

I read Anandtech and Tom's because these sites tend to be the least biased. Wow, that's a killer statement. I must admit I like Anandtech's style a little better, but I like Tom's frequency much better.

I've been to many other sites, I even wrote a post questioning the integrety of PC Stats, a site where every piece of hardware seems to be better than everything else (to the point that in a 5900U article, which compared to it to the 9800P, they only compared the 5900U to itself when they turned on AA and AF).

Would you expect a review by AMDzone to be completely unbiased when reviewing a P4? Would you expect a review at Via hardware to be completely unbiased concering an SiS chipset platform? Those are fansites, which explains why I stick to Anandtech and Tom's.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

NMDante · Sep 26, 2003

And for the latest intel's you need also a new motherboard (i875 or sis648 , ...) for the prescott? Wouldnt know anyway perhaps if your thinking on buying a new CPU in a couple months yes then perhaps it is best to just wait and not buy anything.

True, but for the majority of people who already own the i875/i865, it's not a problem. The only consideration is whether the first gen. of Prescott will work on these boards, as stated.

Seeing its buying something overpriced you never will be cost saving that would be a 2500+ . But if you want high en / high performance that can last a couple years (like most people want, the part that buys every new CPU is really small you know) then the A64 3200+ is the best for the moment. Perhaps next year it will be different (altough seeing the price for the prescott I doubt it)

Nope. The A64-3200 isn't the best solution for anyone right now, since the socket 754 isn't going to last too long, meaning new CPU/Mobo upgrade, and the A64-FX is just way too expensive for the performance it showed. The socket 939 is the best bet for A64 buyers, but that's not available until Q1 2004. That might be the best solution for AMD owners.

So 5-10% faster and cheaper isnt a big improvement ? Hmm you not easily sataisfied are you?

No, it's not. I got a 5-10% improvement when I upgraded from a 1.6a to a 2.4c. It costs me about $50 dollars more than my 1.6a setup.
When the hype of A64 was it would run this and that faster, and 32-bit progs would be faster, I expected more, to be honest, and I did not really see it.

Same here if you game or just want a processor that runs everything fast and isnt that expensive its AMD you need to look at.

I still believe this to be true for the low-end/mid range CPUs, but the A64 is neither cheaper nor faster. You cannot tell me that a rig that would cost me almost $700+ for CPU/mobo/RAM is a cheaper and faster solution. Nope. AMD is moving away from cheap/affordable to competitive pricing, and AMD fans are the ones who will have to either bite the bullet on prices, or find an alternative.

Now, the whole HL2 and gaming thing. I can tell you this much...I don't play my games with everything turned on, and full anti-aliasing. I play the game at a level that is good for me, and me alone. Sometimes, less is more, for games.

How many watts does it take to get the center of CPU core?

Guest · Sep 30, 2003

Poster: Crashman
Subject: Re: Toms reviews make you stupid

I read Anandtech and Tom's because these sites tend to be the least biased. Wow, that's a killer statement. I must admit I like Anandtech's style a little better, but I like Tom's frequency much better.

I've been to many other sites, I even wrote a post questioning the integrety of PC Stats, a site where every piece of hardware seems to be better than everything else (to the point that in a 5900U article, which compared to it to the 9800P, they only compared the 5900U to itself when they turned on AA and AF).

Would you expect a review by AMDzone to be completely unbiased when reviewing a P4? Would you expect a review at Via hardware to be completely unbiased concering an SiS chipset platform? Those are fansites, which explains why I stick to Anandtech and Tom's.

I never said just look at AMDZONE there are about a dozen websites that all state the same the AMD 64-FX is the top performer of the moment in most applications . All in all most sites think its a succes only toms hardware guide sees it different. So or he is wrong or all tose other sites are pro-AMD you seem to think all those others are pro-AMD I dont. But as I said you have little choice .

Guest · Sep 30, 2003

nmdante : Nope. The A64-3200 isn't the best solution for anyone right now, since the socket 754 isn't going to last too long, meaning new CPU/Mobo upgrade, and the A64-FX is just way too expensive for the performance it showed. The socket 939 is the best bet for A64 buyers, but that's not available until Q1 2004. That might be the best solution for AMD owners.

Again your talking as if computer freaks are the only ones buying PC's. Its not the case most people buy a PC for years not months and in years it doesnt matter wich motherboard/RAM/CPU cause it all going to be obsolete . As I said only for a small group of people its worth buying a intel CPU .

No, it's not. I got a 5-10% improvement when I upgraded from a 1.6a to a 2.4c. It costs me about $50 dollars more than my 1.6a setup.
When the hype of A64 was it would run this and that faster, and 32-bit progs would be faster, I expected more, to be honest, and I did not really see it.

It does run this and that faster in 32bit and a whole of a lot faster then all current P4's in the stores . You expected more? Thats your problem I would think dont know why seeing the benchmarks we saw never showed more and AMD never said it would be more.

I still believe this to be true for the low-end/mid range CPUs, but the A64 is neither cheaper nor faster. You cannot tell me that a rig that would cost me almost $700+ for CPU/mobo/RAM is a cheaper and faster solution. Nope. AMD is moving away from cheap/affordable to competitive pricing, and AMD fans are the ones who will have to either bite the bullet on prices, or find an alternative.

Your mixing things up. First the AMD 64 3200+ is cheaper and faster then the fastest intel CPU curently avaible, no reason to deny that benchmarks show it. Second it always depends what people want but at this time no matter what you want (except for people into heavy rendering or video-editing) its AMD thats the best, wether you buy and 2000+ 2500+ or the AMD 64 3200+ it doesnt matter for that money and that performance you cannot find a cheaper system.

Now, the whole HL2 and gaming thing. I can tell you this much...I don't play my games with everything turned on, and full anti-aliasing. I play the game at a level that is good for me, and me alone. Sometimes, less is more, for games.

I know I play HALO now at 800X... I got everyting turned up and it looks good so why bother with the 1024X... ? But some people always want the fastest and do want everything turned up.

TknD · Sep 30, 2003

But hey, if you want to count 3 irrelevant 640x480x16 (!) Quake3 subbenches as 3 seperate benchmarks

I'm not sure how true this is, but I believe there are non-official modified or optmized quake 3 dlls for AMD cpus. I rememember reading that this was due to the fact that quake3 does not run SSE code on any AMD cpus and resorts to the buggy 3dnow! code (buggy quake code, not buggy chip).

Guest · Oct 1, 2003

I heard the same, but when I did some googling, this was quickly revealed as BS. Yes, there are recompiled DLL's that make Q3 run faster, by compiling the platform independant "bytecode" used in Doom3 and/or by making use of faster compilers than where available in the time Q3 was released.

Speedups range from 10 to 30% depending on the source, the test and settings. however, both intel and amd cpu's see almost the exact same speedup. Its a hoax that is being repeated over and over, but its not true. I'm sorry, I don't have the link at hand, but it was posted on aces message board a while ago.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

sargeduck · Oct 1, 2003

Why can't we just all get along? Ok, I'm going to end this argument right now. Screw the Pentium. Screw the Athlon.
Let's all get a C3 processor!!! (last I heard they were at a blazing 1Ghz)

As each day goes by, I hug my 9600Pro just a little tighter.

flamethrower205 · Oct 1, 2003

I'm already stupid, they make me smarter!!!

It comes down to the fact that they have the hardware faster than me, so I look at their benchies and decide. And they are unbiased and useful.

The one and only "Monstrous BULLgarian!"

ufo_warviper · Oct 1, 2003

Let's all get a C3 processor!!! (last I heard they were at a blazing 1Ghz)

Somebody summon Crashman. :evil:

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!

ChipDeath · Oct 1, 2003

Somebody summon Crashman

I heard that if you look into a mirror and say 'VIA is Stable, VIA is fast' three times he'll appear and beat you to death with a VIA EPIA board..

---
The preceding text is assembled from information stored in an unreliable organic storage medium. As such it may be innacurate, incomplete, or completely wrong

eden · Oct 2, 2003

Good one!

Also if you go into a swamp with dead souls, and look at the water, and chant "Shuttle PCs are the wave of the future" with candles in a decagon layout, he'll come out of the water and suck you right in!

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

eden · Oct 2, 2003

It comes down to the fact that they have the hardware faster than me, so I look at their benchies and decide. And they are unbiased and useful.

You compare your mental speed to processors?! 😱

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

flamethrower205 · Oct 3, 2003

What??? Eden, dude, remember when u said u wouldn't smoke up...what happened??

I meant that they get the comp hardware faster than i could get it, thus I see what I will buy from their reviews.

The one and only "Monstrous BULLgarian!"

sargeduck · Oct 3, 2003

Hey! a Christmas present for Crash.
A shuttle Pc using a via mb and a C3 processor. He'd be so thrilled

We can all take up a collection for him, and have it giftwrapped in time for the holidays!

*runs and hides in corner, fearing the wrath of the crash!"

As each day goes by, I hug my 9600Pro just a little tighter.

dinkster9 · Oct 4, 2003

what i love is that one reviewer at THG shows us in no uncertain terms that the line of FX video cards are crap and don't match up to their compition. Yet a few days later someone else at THG did a review on different price/performance video cards and then gave the "coveted" toms hardware guide award to the freaking 5600FX card because it came packaged with lots of software and a remote. GMAFB...

A7n8xDX2.0|B2500+@200x11=3200+(2.2ghz)(1.775v)Corsair512twinxpc3200llpt(2-2-2-6)R9700P(stock)160Gx2WD7200RPM 8MB HD|Enermax460W|T:43C@N,50C@FL,MB 28C|3DMark2001 17087|3DMark2003 5134

Toms reviews make you stupid

Champion

Distinguished

Distinguished

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Polypheme

Distinguished

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Distinguished

Guest

Guest

Distinguished

Illustrious

Distinguished

Splendid

Champion

Champion

Illustrious

Distinguished

Distinguished

Share this page