• 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.

AT Review Rant

P

Pederv

Golden Member
If this site thought that Intels offerings for the past few years were crap, then why didn't they tell us? Are they more loyal to advertisers than to readers?

Where are the multiprocessing benches? A multicore processor review without multiprocessing benches, sure makes sense to me.
 
A major tech site is hardly going to post "Intels offerings for the past few years were crap", but they did run the benchmarks, and they clearly recommended the AMD.

And "what is the truth?"... what is the truth about what?
 
The truth is that for the first time in a while Intel seems to have made the better chip. However, they are usually first to market with their new chips (P4 was out for a long time and pretty much dominating AMD before the Athlon64 line was released) so, you can choose what you want to think about it. However, for right now Intel has an increadible lead in performance.
 
I think the situation is more that back then, they took the tactful route and recommended AMD's superior performance & value versus blatantly saying Intel's offerings were crap. Now that Intel has SERIOUSLY turned the tables, it is more PC to make fun of Intel's troubled past.

While I think AT in general is going downhill, I see nothing wrong with this or other CPU reviews.
 
If they slate intel badly (even when they deserve it) then intel may not be as forthcoming with samples in the future. The same goes for any other company. I know of one review site that won't print articles if they are wholey negative for just that reason.

"Oh sorry, we've got one ear marked for you but there was a problem in shipping..."
 
They gave you the information about massive heat and power draw vs. A64, they showed you the performance gaps between A64 and P4s. They assumed you could read and look at the many pretty, pretty charts.

They just didn't go a step further and insult Intel like oafish buffoons, which is apparently what you think is responsible journalism.
 
Seems like most people understood what Anand was saying just fine as something like 85% of AT forum members use amd 😛
 
Originally posted by: skooma
Seems like most people understood what Anand was saying just fine as something like 85% of AT forum members use amd 😛
Click to expand...
And based on the current review, it looks like many of us will make our next personal build an Intel machine. It will be my first personal rig that's Intel.
 
Originally posted by: Rike
Originally posted by: skooma
Seems like most people understood what Anand was saying just fine as something like 85% of AT forum members use amd 😛
Click to expand...
And based on the current review, it looks like many of us will make our next personal build an Intel machine. It will be my first personal rig that's Intel.
Click to expand...

It is definately going to be in my next build, i cant say i will be using the top one but the E6600-E6300 are my candidates.
now i just need to find a board for it
 
i can tell you what im putting in minus the CPU/MOBO
2GB DDR2-675 XMS2-5400 Xtreme Performance Memory
2x Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 ST3300622AS 300GB Serial ATA 7200RPM Hard Drive w/16MB Buffer
eVGA 256-P2-N584-AR Geforce 7900GT KO
Ultra Blue Aluminus ATX Mid-Tower Case
Ultra / X-Connect / 500-Watt
ViewEra V174SD-B Black 17" 8ms LCD Monitor
And another soundcard still deciding if the X-Fi is worth it or not
 
Originally posted by: Pacemaker
The truth is that for the first time in a while Intel seems to have made the better chip. However, they are usually first to market with their new chips (P4 was out for a long time and pretty much dominating AMD before the Athlon64 line was released) so, you can choose what you want to think about it. However, for right now Intel has an increadible lead in performance.
Click to expand...

Well, in a long while, Intel made better chips before AMD came up with Athlon, as well Intel had the crown at the end of Northwood.
 
The only time AMD had the clear upper hand:

Athlon
Athlon 64

P4c was the better CPU (compared to XP).
Now Intel finally bested the K8 with C2D. (and it took them long enough)
 
Originally posted by: coldpower27
Originally posted by: Pacemaker
The truth is that for the first time in a while Intel seems to have made the better chip. However, they are usually first to market with their new chips (P4 was out for a long time and pretty much dominating AMD before the Athlon64 line was released) so, you can choose what you want to think about it. However, for right now Intel has an increadible lead in performance.
Click to expand...

Well, in a long while, Intel made better chips before AMD came up with Athlon, as well Intel had the crown at the end of Northwood.
Click to expand...

I think I said the same thing as you only differently. I used to be as my friend put it a "pentium pusher" because I kept telling him how bad AMD and the others where (talking about the P1-2 generation) in comparison, but you have to give AMD credit. They may not compete blow for blow, but it seems like (at least for the last few years) they always (eventually) have an answer that meets and even surpasses Intel.

I will say this, Intel is going to have the lead for a while unless AMD pulls a rabbit out of their hat.
 
Originally posted by: Pacemaker
Originally posted by: coldpower27
Originally posted by: Pacemaker
The truth is that for the first time in a while Intel seems to have made the better chip. However, they are usually first to market with their new chips (P4 was out for a long time and pretty much dominating AMD before the Athlon64 line was released) so, you can choose what you want to think about it. However, for right now Intel has an increadible lead in performance.
Click to expand...

Well, in a long while, Intel made better chips before AMD came up with Athlon, as well Intel had the crown at the end of Northwood.
Click to expand...

I think I said the same thing as you only differently. I used to be as my friend put it a "pentium pusher" because I kept telling him how bad AMD and the others where (talking about the P1-2 generation) in comparison, but you have to give AMD credit. They may not compete blow for blow, but it seems like (at least for the last few years) they always (eventually) have an answer that meets and even surpasses Intel.

I will say this, Intel is going to have the lead for a while unless AMD pulls a rabbit out of their hat.
Click to expand...

I don't think AMD is going to recover from this as quickly, they will need K8L to surpass Conroe. That doesn't come till 2007 and were not sure when it will arrive on desktop.
A the rate this is going, it will likely become Kentsfield vs K8L Quad Core.

Well they compete well enough considering their resources, but I don't expect a rabbit out of AMD's hat when Intel is firing on all cylinders.
 
If AMD actually increased the performance or enhanced the core in increments after DDR2, 90nm, 65nm etc...they wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. They have been sitting on the k8 for 2-3 years and frankly it has gotten boring.

Maybe this will light a fire under AMDs ass. 4x4 is a gimmick and a joke. Maybe if you alt+tab out of a 3D games a lot. We really need to hear something from AMD. We want some bit of information about the future other than lower voltage consuming processors that all ready reached their over clocking cap anyway. Not unless we actually care about spending the extra 10 dollars for a better PSU....

Computex was a joke too. Basically AMD had nothing to show but "placebo" charts that represented a new processor. In reality AMD has nothing to show but a bunch of color coded blocks on a diagram of basic CPU micro-parts which conveniently had the word "enhanced" printed all over it.
 
Originally posted by: Pederv
If this site thought that Intels offerings for the past few years were crap, then why didn't they tell us? Are they more loyal to advertisers than to readers?
Click to expand...

Because they can't. Imagine a review beginning like this:

"Heya dewd, welcome to our latest unbiased review where we introduce to you Intel's latest crap that (as usual) has a snowball's chance in hell to keep up with the *fascinating* AMD that yet again shines like a hypernova from low orbit. The very first you should keep in mind while browsing our unbiased article, is that Intel sucks big time and you shouldn't buy any of their inferior CPUs, ever. Now where was I..."

I mean, that would be quite... unusual.
 
Originally posted by: Kyanzes
"Heya dewd, welcome to our latest unbiased review where we introduce to you Intel's latest crap that (as usual) has a snowball's chance in hell to keep up with the *fascinating* AMD that yet again shines like a hypernova from low orbit. The very first you should keep in mind while browsing our unbiased article, is that Intel sucks big time and you shouldn't buy any of their inferior CPUs, ever. Now where was I..."
Click to expand...

Damn fine journalism, I say. You should be a writer.
 
Originally posted by: Kyanzes

Because they can't. Imagine a review beginning like this:

"Heya dewd, welcome to our latest unbiased review where we introduce to you Intel's latest crap that (as usual) has a snowball's chance in hell to keep up with the *fascinating* AMD that yet again shines like a hypernova from low orbit. The very first you should keep in mind while browsing our unbiased article, is that Intel sucks big time and you shouldn't buy any of their inferior CPUs, ever. Now where was I..."

I mean, that would be quite... unusual.
Click to expand...


Well I didn't mean going going quite that far. Just taking the sugar coating off of the poor performance would have been enough.

Great write-up though.
 
Yeah, I like Anand's article fine. It bashed Intel NetBurst (which isn't that far off considering performance versus K8), but then it kinda bashed AMD to in terms of K8x86-64 versus Conroe. I really don't have any brand loyalties in terms of processors, since both AMD and Intel make a quality product; it's just up to which company's product performs better.

At this rate, if I am building or upgrading a system in the next six (or maybe more, depending on AMD), it's going to be Intel-based. Been such a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top