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?
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...
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....
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:
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.....
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.