Anantech new cpu review is clearly second fiddle...

[LTC8K6]

Even AT has the FX60 cleaning the 965's clock 90% of the time.

 

[Duvie]

I mean if anyone looks at the Tech report test from beginning to end it is clear who is whoms daddy....It is night and day in quality....results aside it is the sheer info I gain from it....

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, my catch isn't good for Intel since it appears that going to 64bit makes AMD's lead even bigger.

Speaking of which, were the Conroe tests done in 64bit?

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Yeah, my catch isn't good for Intel since it appears that going to 64bit makes AMD's lead even bigger.

Speaking of which, were the Conroe tests done in 64bit?

Wow, that's a good point. If the tests were NOT 64 bit and it turns out Intel's implementation isn't as strong as AMD's implementation, then with 64 bit becoming more common (isn't Vista going to natively support it?) then the lead we saw in the "preview" will be eroded to some degree.

 

[coldpower27]

Possibly, the flip side though is also a possibility, with 64Bit Extending Conroe's lead even further.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Yeah the review was short and to the point, but you must admit that the only real thing that differentiates this iteration of the P4 EE is the C1E halt state, the results of which were reviewed and pointed out.

Don't get me wrong, I have noticed a certain lack of completeness in many of the AT revies of late. I'm just not complaining about this one because I really don't WANT to hear about a new Netburst processor. I just skimmed through it sayin "same ol' same ol' ooh look nice power consumption...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz".

WHERE'S CONROE, WHERE'S AM2 I CAN'T WAIT A WHOLE QUARTER! *dances about madly pulling out hair*

 

[Duvie]

Since AT did not do a 920/930 or 940 review this is not much of a recap...Also if he had done reviews he would have used same test suite from the past so we can see what if any gains are made....However they are getting smaller and smaller all the time....


I dont wnat to see Conroe or AM2 reviews if they wont be fully tested and verified test anyways...The problem is with the way recent reviews have been I dont think this will be the best place to see the review...

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Duvie
I dont wnat to see Conroe or AM2 reviews if they wont be fully tested and verified test anyways...The problem is with the way recent reviews have been I dont think this will be the best place to see the review...

Ack I've been reading AT for ~7 years. It would really be sad to lose confidence in them now, but if the recent lack of content persists then I have to agree with you. :frown:

 

[FelixDeCat]

I found no problems with the reveiw. I think the OP just didnt like the facts being pointed out. Even after this rear end kiss for amd fans:

"said in my review of the Extreme Edition 955 a few months ago that Intel wouldn't likely catch up to AMD using processors based on the NetBurst microarchitecture. My faith in that prediction has been shaken somewhat by the Extreme Edition 965's combination of overclocking headroom and reduced power draw. This CPU is still no match for the Athlon 64 FX-60?or even the Athlon 64 X2 4800+?when running at its default 3.73GHz clock speed. But this puppy is a powerful reminder of the benefits better process technology can bring. For its mission in life as a thousand-dollar play-toy that will serve as the centerpiece of an ultra-high-end PC, likely with exotic cooling and extensive overclocking, the Extreme Edition 965 is a startlingly worthy rival to the Athlon 64 FX-60. That mission isn't exactly a populist one, and the 965's virtues don't put Intel's other desktop processors on par with the Athlon 64 X2 in the meatier, more value-driven part of the market. "

..you still complain? Please.

And as far as Toms is concerned, if I had a nickle for everytime that site gets criticized I could be fab plant. :roll:

 

[rogue1979]

Originally posted by: Duvie
The only thing I can think of, is that he (Anand) will read this and start doing the reviews like he did in the past...Yes I know there are lots of gamers in here, but even most of them do other things with their PC and would like to see those comparisons...

A dual core review and especially one with an XE and 4 virtual cores should have had a multitasking chart like past dual cores have and Tomshardware has...

Should see more balance in the test used...less synthetics...since Intel seems to win 3dmark yet did not win one game and has not in awhile it should make any self-respecting reviewer question its usefulness....


The only thing I ask for....i am not questioning his technical jargin at the beginning or many of his conclusions...just the test and the layout of the review....

I am sure that Anand is losing sleep after reading this. Maybe he will start reviewing in a way that tickles your fancy.....

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
I found no problems with the reveiw. I think the OP just didnt like the facts being pointed out. Even after this rear end kiss for amd fans:

"said in my review of the Extreme Edition 955 a few months ago that Intel wouldn't likely catch up to AMD using processors based on the NetBurst microarchitecture. My faith in that prediction has been shaken somewhat by the Extreme Edition 965's combination of overclocking headroom and reduced power draw. This CPU is still no match for the Athlon 64 FX-60?or even the Athlon 64 X2 4800+?when running at its default 3.73GHz clock speed. But this puppy is a powerful reminder of the benefits better process technology can bring. For its mission in life as a thousand-dollar play-toy that will serve as the centerpiece of an ultra-high-end PC, likely with exotic cooling and extensive overclocking, the Extreme Edition 965 is a startlingly worthy rival to the Athlon 64 FX-60. That mission isn't exactly a populist one, and the 965's virtues don't put Intel's other desktop processors on par with the Athlon 64 X2 in the meatier, more value-driven part of the market. "

..you still complain? Please.

And as far as Toms is concerned, if I had a nickle for everytime that site gets criticized I could be fab plant. :roll:

Not hard to see that once again you dont actually read...or maybe that is comprehend...probably both....

I am not talking about the results or any conclusions he made...just the test he used. Not because Intel looked any better in any of them but just the fact of the lack of non gaming apps...

TechReport and Toms had a far better selection of test and were far more well-rounded....

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: rogue1979

Originally posted by: Duvie
The only thing I can think of, is that he (Anand) will read this and start doing the reviews like he did in the past...Yes I know there are lots of gamers in here, but even most of them do other things with their PC and would like to see those comparisons...

A dual core review and especially one with an XE and 4 virtual cores should have had a multitasking chart like past dual cores have and Tomshardware has...

Should see more balance in the test used...less synthetics...since Intel seems to win 3dmark yet did not win one game and has not in awhile it should make any self-respecting reviewer question its usefulness....


The only thing I ask for....i am not questioning his technical jargin at the beginning or many of his conclusions...just the test and the layout of the review....

I am sure that Anand is losing sleep after reading this. Maybe he will start reviewing in a way that tickles your fancy.....

Probably not!!! If he is happy with mediocrity he shuold be sleeping like a baby...Doesn't have to tickle my fancy, because I will read my reviews elsewhere and just link them to my peeps here...

 

[stardust]

I think this review may have also been related to timing. I don't think very many people are interested in buying this processor at this point in time, so Anand may have been allocating more time in products that have more buyers or more hype.

However, I do think the balance of this review was pretty bad. I would've really liked to see more multithreading. I think by now everybody knows netburst processors have reached their efficiency limit a long time ago, so the reviews should focus more heavily on newer technology or better variety of tests.

I have yet to see something like a Terragen render benchmark with/without another media benchmark.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Honestly, I haven't actively sought out or read a desktop or workstation based Intel review in almost 2yrs. I just haven't been excited about those products. Talking out my ass and getting it handed to me, has made me take more time to read up on mobile parts though.

I read this one because I saw this thread about it, and it is definitely not Anands' best work. It was like reading a several year old review here, but with brand new hardware. I think he is definitetly not 100% focused on his web site right now, quite understandable too. Married, building a home, ect.

This is one of the biggest hardware sites on the web, and some of the content really seems to be geared towards that "mainstream" audience now. The more serious enthusiasts and professionals are going to be critical of content like that, but I'm certain Anand is far more interested in revenue than positive peer review right now

IMO, comments like the following quote are evidence of the mainstream focus-

The DVD Shrink test is quite important as DVD Shrink is quite possibly one of the easiest tools to rip a DVD. The easier a tool is to use, the more likely that it's going to be used, and arguably the more important performance using it happens to be.

For the record, I have personally come to loath synthetic benchmarks, but as those using them have better credentials than mine, that means precisely dick to anyone but myself.

 

[rogue1979]

Isn't DVD Shrink one of the programs the unpopular netburst cpu's actually do very well at?