• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Another Toms biased review Athlon FX

Tom's "biased" in this way because the last benchmark he did came up and bit him in the ass. He overclocked the s#!t out of a P4 EE and put results of that vaporeware up, and didn't do much of anything with the FX (and this was the GeForce FX review!). If anything, Tom is the most Intel biased website I know of.

And of course he's using a GeForce FX 5900 because he just has to "think different". Honestly, I'm starting to think Tom isn't biased anymore, just stupid.
 
How can he be biased towards AMD when the amd ppl say he is biased against them??? Make up your minds....

Gotta admit the atlon 2800 scales nicely in performance...However that gaming crap aside (which I don't do) the stock 3.2c was still good enough to beat stock 2200 fx51 on whatever mobo in multimedia in which I do....Take a P4 cpu air cooled at 3.6ghz and anywhere from a 1000-1200fsb and ram from 450-550mhz I think would beat the 2800 in those same test. now throw in a prometia cooled chip or just vapochill and the INtel oc'd chip will win all the multimedia test.

Still gotta admit the amd64 fx is very nice when you consider a 3.8ghz to 4ghz oc'd to hell with fsb equals a 2800 fx51...NOw throw in the amd chip didn't oc through fsb which I assume is do to the motherboards immaturity. jack that fsb and bandwidth up and I think it pulls ahead against a 3.8ghz....

I would have to say for non-overclockers the p4 3.2c is still the better option and the single channel a64 is far worse...

I am glad to know my 2.6c@3.5ghz with a 1080fsb and dual pc3500 at 433mhz cas 2,3,3,6 for 1/4 of upgrading to the fx (for me) would make me have to get an fx and oc the hell out of it and beyond my conventional cooling methods.
 
Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Tom's "biased" in this way because the last benchmark he did came up and bit him in the ass. He overclocked the s#!t out of a P4 EE and put results of that vaporeware up, and didn't do much of anything with the FX (and this was the GeForce FX review!). If anything, Tom is the most Intel biased website I know of.

And of course he's using a GeForce FX 5900 because he just has to "think different". Honestly, I'm starting to think Tom isn't biased anymore, just stupid.
Click to expand...


Here, here....I have always thought he wasn't biased just stupid in the methods of his reviews and use to be the test he ran, but I got to admit no one runs a more real rounded suit of multimedia test.
 
5-6 years ago he was pro AMD, now he just goes for who is paying his bills for the month. How hard would it have been to include OC'd P4's in there knowing they would be at the top of that list?
 
I don't question tom, his articals just turned to crap IMO. There's some decent reads on hardware, but anything he has to say about CPUs is kaka at this point.
 
I don't think he's biased or stupid. I think he's incredibly smart to play his advertisers like he does. "Here's a pre-production sample of our new product line... oh... and BTW... here's a few bucks for ya just to keep your website up and running... wink wink... nudge nudge"
 
Originally posted by: orion7144
5-6 years ago he was pro AMD, now he just goes for who is paying his bills for the month. How hard would it have been to include OC'd P4's in there knowing they would be at the top of that list?
Click to expand...

This must be case. I mean how could he go from Plugging Intel so hardcore in the original Athlon 64 review to going the complete other way in the A64 overclocking test.

It's like he just has to have a clear winner in everything, and if there isn't a clear winner he will just make one up. Or, he will take a 5% difference and interpret it as one platform "crushing" or "trashing" the other.

The only thing Tom has going for him is that he runs so many bloody tests.
 
Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I don't think he's biased or stupid. I think he's incredibly smart to play his advertisers like he does. "Here's a pre-production sample of our new product line... oh... and BTW... here's a few bucks for ya just to keep your website up and running... wink wink... nudge nudge"
Click to expand...

But, wouldnt that make him both stupid AND biased? Readers want unbiased results in real world tests so they can choose what to spend their next five paychecks on, when they catch on that he is biased to whomever pays the most they will quit reading his reviews, so he has to be pretty stupid to do that.

I heard a rumor that THG has an office inside an intel building over there, is that true or a lie?
 
I think THG has already proved more than enough that he lacks credibility in any comparison between AMD and Intel. That is a common knowledge. At this point FX-51 is the best and the fastest son of a gun CPU out there with or without Pentium Emergency Editions. Tom can dance whatever he wants but dozens of other reviews had all pretty much the same conclusion --- FX-51 holds the performance crown at the moment.
 
Originally posted by: joe2004
I think THG has already proved more than enough that he lacks credibility in any comparison between AMD and Intel. That is a common knowledge. At this point FX-51 is the best and the fastest son of a gun CPU out there with or without Pentium Emergency Editions. Tom can dance whatever he wants but dozens of other reviews had all pretty much the same conclusion --- FX-51 holds the performance crown at the moment.
Click to expand...

unless you want to do 2 things at once.
 
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: joe2004
I think THG has already proved more than enough that he lacks credibility in any comparison between AMD and Intel. That is a common knowledge. At this point FX-51 is the best and the fastest son of a gun CPU out there with or without Pentium Emergency Editions. Tom can dance whatever he wants but dozens of other reviews had all pretty much the same conclusion --- FX-51 holds the performance crown at the moment.
Click to expand...

unless you want to do 2 things at once.
Click to expand...

Sure hyperthreading is a good idea for masking the fact that much of the core of the p4 is unused much of the time, but Ive yet to see it help much in real world tests and seems to hurt performance in most single-threaded apps. I thought it would help my work system be more usable when defragging but it didnt help at all. I think dual core is much more useful and will probably be the next line-drawn-in-the-sand between intel and amd.
 
Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Originally posted by: orion7144
5-6 years ago he was pro AMD, now he just goes for who is paying his bills for the month. How hard would it have been to include OC'd P4's in there knowing they would be at the top of that list?
Click to expand...

This must be case. I mean how could he go from Plugging Intel so hardcore in the original Athlon 64 review to going the complete other way in the A64 overclocking test.

It's like he just has to have a clear winner in everything, and if there isn't a clear winner he will just make one up. Or, he will take a 5% difference and interpret it as one platform "crushing" or "trashing" the other.

The only thing Tom has going for him is that he runs so many bloody tests.
Click to expand...


Yeeah I agree, he seems to lost all of his sense of objectivity, every review is a hardware deathmatch. I remember 2-3 years ago i'd never heard of Anandtech and used to visit THG just about every day and found his articles and reviews intelligent and unbiased. THG used to be first with most of the news too, now he can't even do that.

BTW, how much does he earn just out of interest? 🙂:beer:
 
Originally posted by: Duvie
How can he be biased towards AMD when the amd ppl say he is biased against them??? Make up your minds....

Gotta admit the atlon 2800 scales nicely in performance...However that gaming crap aside (which I don't do) the stock 3.2c was still good enough to beat stock 2200 fx51 on whatever mobo in multimedia in which I do....Take a P4 cpu air cooled at 3.6ghz and anywhere from a 1000-1200fsb and ram from 450-550mhz I think would beat the 2800 in those same test. now throw in a prometia cooled chip or just vapochill and the INtel oc'd chip will win all the multimedia test.
Click to expand...

I just did some quick calculations of the scalability of the P4 from 2.6-3.2 and the AFX/NForce 3 from 2.2-2.8 using Tom's results. And interestingly enough the P4 was the more scalable chip in terms of [% performance increase / % clock increase], despite the AFX's large cache and ondie memory controller. Out of 24 non-synthetic, non-Mark type benchmark (like PC Mark, 3D Mark, etc..) the P4 was more scalable in 16, the AFX won 8. The P4 had an average scalability of 0.81 while the AFX had 0.75. Out of the 16 P4 victories, its scalability advantage (P4scalability - AFXscalability) over the AFX was 11.7%, while the AFX had an advantage of 6.5% in its 8 victories.

While the AFX 2.8's scores may be low due to non-cpu bottlenecks (unfortunately, there's no datapoints in between 2.2 and 2.8 to be sure), one can also expect Prescott to be more scalable with its core enhancements and larger caches as well.

 
UberTom is the used car salesman of the hardware review community 😉
 
Originally posted by: rgreen83
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: joe2004
I think THG has already proved more than enough that he lacks credibility in any comparison between AMD and Intel. That is a common knowledge. At this point FX-51 is the best and the fastest son of a gun CPU out there with or without Pentium Emergency Editions. Tom can dance whatever he wants but dozens of other reviews had all pretty much the same conclusion --- FX-51 holds the performance crown at the moment.
Click to expand...

unless you want to do 2 things at once.
Click to expand...

Sure hyperthreading is a good idea for masking the fact that much of the core of the p4 is unused much of the time, but Ive yet to see it help much in real world tests and seems to hurt performance in most single-threaded apps. I thought it would help my work system be more usable when defragging but it didnt help at all. I think dual core is much more useful and will probably be the next line-drawn-in-the-sand between intel and amd.
Click to expand...


Lets see I have a 2.4b and a 2.4C and the C greatly outperforms the B at stock clock speed and sitting right next to each other it is easy to tell the difference. Open up a couple of WinRar windows on each machine and that is were the C does even better. At OC'd speeds the synthetic and FPS numbers are at or above the FX OC'd on Toms site with the 2.4C at 3.4.
 
Originally posted by: orion7144
Originally posted by: rgreen83
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: joe2004
I think THG has already proved more than enough that he lacks credibility in any comparison between AMD and Intel. That is a common knowledge. At this point FX-51 is the best and the fastest son of a gun CPU out there with or without Pentium Emergency Editions. Tom can dance whatever he wants but dozens of other reviews had all pretty much the same conclusion --- FX-51 holds the performance crown at the moment.
Click to expand...

unless you want to do 2 things at once.
Click to expand...

Sure hyperthreading is a good idea for masking the fact that much of the core of the p4 is unused much of the time, but Ive yet to see it help much in real world tests and seems to hurt performance in most single-threaded apps. I thought it would help my work system be more usable when defragging but it didnt help at all. I think dual core is much more useful and will probably be the next line-drawn-in-the-sand between intel and amd.
Click to expand...


Lets see I have a 2.4b and a 2.4C and the C greatly outperforms the B at stock clock speed and sitting right next to each other it is easy to tell the difference. Open up a couple of WinRar windows on each machine and that is were the C does even better. At OC'd speeds the synthetic and FPS numbers are at or above the FX OC'd on Toms site with the 2.4C at 3.4.
Click to expand...

At stock speeds and SAME FSB....how much faster is the 2.4C??

 
Originally posted by: mamisano
At stock speeds and SAME FSB....how much faster is the 2.4C??
Click to expand...

At the stock speed and same FSB, the 2.4C and the 2.4B would be about equal. It's the FSB and memory speed increase that give the C series it's wings. I would argue that most programs/games don't have much of an increase (if any) due to HT yet.. They haven'thad time to optimize for it yet.

However, hyperthreading is a god-send if you like to do many things at once. It makes burning a DVD/CD while watching a DVD movie AND surfing the net possible, which I could not do before. There are many combinations of things I like to do on my PC at once, and hyperthreading is the best thing since sliced bread for heavy multitaskers (and sliced bread is great 😉 ).
 
Originally posted by: Accord99
Originally posted by: Duvie
How can he be biased towards AMD when the amd ppl say he is biased against them??? Make up your minds....

Gotta admit the atlon 2800 scales nicely in performance...However that gaming crap aside (which I don't do) the stock 3.2c was still good enough to beat stock 2200 fx51 on whatever mobo in multimedia in which I do....Take a P4 cpu air cooled at 3.6ghz and anywhere from a 1000-1200fsb and ram from 450-550mhz I think would beat the 2800 in those same test. now throw in a prometia cooled chip or just vapochill and the INtel oc'd chip will win all the multimedia test.
Click to expand...

I just did some quick calculations of the scalability of the P4 from 2.6-3.2 and the AFX/NForce 3 from 2.2-2.8 using Tom's results. And interestingly enough the P4 was the more scalable chip in terms of [% performance increase / % clock increase], despite the AFX's large cache and ondie memory controller. Out of 24 non-synthetic, non-Mark type benchmark (like PC Mark, 3D Mark, etc..) the P4 was more scalable in 16, the AFX won 8. The P4 had an average scalability of 0.81 while the AFX had 0.75. Out of the 16 P4 victories, its scalability advantage (P4scalability - AFXscalability) over the AFX was 11.7%, while the AFX had an advantage of 6.5% in its 8 victories.

While the AFX 2.8's scores may be low due to non-cpu bottlenecks (unfortunately, there's no datapoints in between 2.2 and 2.8 to be sure), one can also expect Prescott to be more scalable with its core enhancements and larger caches as well.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the error in your calculations, you used toms results😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top