Triple core review was pointless

ZephyrXero

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2005
2
0
18,510
As while I would have rather emailed the author and/or editor for the article, all they offer as contact info was this board so here goes...

I've read Tom's for years now, and am usually quite impressed with the detail you guys can go into, but I was severly unimpressed with the recent triple core story as well as your past 64 bit CPU reviews. How are you gonna review this type of hardware on an operating system that barely even supports it yet and completely ignore the ones that do? Windows XP is not a viable system for benchmarking 64 bit nor multiprocess/core CPUs, Microsoft would probably tell you this themselves. As for Windows XP-64 and Vista, they're both still in beta, and neither one's gonna show good numbers either. Why not use Linux or BSD or some sort of OS that has supported these features for many years now? I'm not saying you'll have less crashing on them with your odd triple core setup, b/c I don't have the hardware to test it myself (thus why I read your site), I don't know...but I'd say it's a fairly safe assumption to make ;)

So please, for all future CPU reviews and benchmarks involving multiprocessors, multicores or 64bit computing, how about using the appropriate system to test them on?
 
I really hate to be the one to break this to you, but WinXP-64 is most certainly not in beta. It's been gold since what, April? You're a little behind the times, my friend.

Vista is still in beta... maybe that's what you've confused it with.
 

endyen

Splendid
If it "feels" like it's still in beta, it's probably a driver issue.
Give us your system specs, and we may be able to help.
As far as using linux for a review, most of the regulars here would agree 100%. At least use bothe, if you must have a M$ os.
The thing is, most info on THG is written with the computer semi-literate in mind. If they dont see what they want, they go away.
Unfortuneatly, they have sent you to preach to the choir. Most of the posters here a less than thrilled with the track THG has taken of late.
 

mpjesse

Splendid
I kind of agree with you. I walked away from this review asking myself "what was the point?" Sure, they demonstrated that 3 core CPU's can be an advantage, but I think this test was premature. Most of the tests crashed on them.

However, it is interesting to see that at least 1 program which supports more than 2 CPU's was able to benefit. A sign of things to come I think...

-mpjesse
 
While I don't agree with your reasons as to why the 3 CPU test was useless, I do agree with the fact it was just that: Useless.

As said before, a lot of the apps would crash etc. + The CPU's were not even of the same type which caused a bit of a compatability issue.
 

slvr_phoenix

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
6,223
1
25,780
It's lack of good 64 bit drivers that makes the OS useless. Not M$'s fault. Blame it on the hardware manufacturers.
While I certainly don't agree with ZephyrXero on the beta-ness of XP-64, I can't completely agree with you about it not being M$'s fault either. There's no good reason that M$ couldn't have written XP-64 to allow the use of the existing 32-bit WinXP drivers. (Well, no good reason other than their own incompetence of course.) For an OS that runs 32-bit apps beautifully, it really should have run 32-bit drivers as well.
 

slvr_phoenix

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
6,223
1
25,780
As said before, a lot of the apps would crash etc. + The CPU's were not even of the same type which caused a bit of a compatability issue.
Which actually was the only thing of value in that whole PoS. :lol:

Why did different CPU types cause that many problems? I mean with AMD's shiny new HT architecture, it shouldn't have been a problem, right? So did AMD screw something up? Or did the mobo manu? The chipset manu? M$? What exactly is the reason for these problems? Inquiring minds want to know...
 

mpjesse

Splendid
Yeah that's true. When Win95 was released most 16bit drivers worked fine w/ it. But then again that could be a way of M$ forcing companies to write 64 bit drivers (which I'm all for). If you think about it, what motivation would hardware companies have to write 64bit drivers if their 32bit drivers worked fine in WinXP 64? Adoption would be a lot slower methinks. I seem to remember 16bit drivers floating around in Win95 forever! I also remember a lot of stability problems w/ 16bit drivers in Win95- esp. in the sound card arena.

Oh well. Thankfully 64bit drivers are getting better. Things should be smoothed out with Vista.

-mpjesse
 

slvr_phoenix

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
6,223
1
25,780
Yeah, but why would a driver need to be written in 64-bit code? I mean when would a driver ever need a GPR that large? :lol: I don't see how it benefits all that many drivers out there. Maybe hard drive related drivers...
 

slvr_phoenix

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
6,223
1
25,780
Off hand I can't think of why they would. **shrug** Video cards dont access that much memory, and still use 32bpp. Even if they used higher than 32bpp, technically, you'd probably be breaking that down per channel anyway, which is then only 8 bits per channel. Even if it used 32-bit math per channel internally and downgraded that when displaying, there wouldn't be a need for 64-bit. **shrug** And that's assuming that the drivers even do that much instead of the card doing that kind of work internally. So I don't know. I can't think of any reasons, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. :lol: :lol: :lol: