Did Anandtech got brought out by Intel?

[TheHolyLancer]

In the recent battery life review, there are two gaping holes that I saw which got me thinking, did anandtech put out a biased review?

In that article, the first thing the author claimed was that the machines were apple vs apple comparison, he even went as far as listing the major components, but did not list the difference between 3200 HD vs GMA 4500 directly! The only part where this is remotely mentioned is at the conclusion about light gaming.

Anyone whom deals with IGP or even desktop discreet gfx would know (or at least have a general clue) that the GMA parts are inferior to the ATI IGP, and the power you get is paid in battery life. If they wanted a fair review, get some AMD laptop and Intel laptop with the same nvidia IGP, or at least something that was proven to have the same/similar performance and same/similar power draw.

My second question is why now? AMD is just around the corner for a back to school / Christmas (depending on whom you ask and when it happens) refresh of their laptop parts that would see 45 nm parts with better chance at beating the intel. This is weird as this "news" is known by all and is expected by Intel and AMD, and I assume Anandtech.

Why would one release a review at this stage is something I want to ask, and if this review had just one issue then it may not have looked as bad, but with two in one, this becomes a very real question.

I want bashing when bashing is needed, if the I5s bring TCO down for an intel system closer to that of an AMD with an i7 like performance, then I want to see AMD bashing on your review (if AMD don't have an appropriate response in place, like sub 100 quads and sub 50 mobos?!), but this is just bull when the two are supposedly apples vs apples, and at this timing.


I posted in OT since it seems that this place is far more livelier than that of the laptop forum.

Moved from Off Topic.
Sr Moderator allisolm

 

[Vette73]

Yea I thought it was going to use the nvidia chipset. But even then the intel one would still have a nvidia memory controller on trhe board and the AMD would be on the chip. So then someone would complain that intel did not have the right setup.

I look at it like this. AMD will be cheaper and usually go on sale and play games better, intel will have better battery life. Not always but on average for laptops.

 

[TheHolyLancer]

but this is aimed at back to school / xmas even ppl (even if they don't read it, intel marketing will be doing the rounds on this one i'll bet)

the timing of this is just too much of an issue, amd recently fired off the fact that people were doing batt life based on idle, like a glorified digital clock, state comparisons, and speedstep is taking everything there because it jut makes the the thing barely functional.

This also comes near the 45 nm refresh on amd, but since they are behind on manuf tech than intel, it is a less of a thing...

and honestly, no matter how bad the NB is, it cannot outplay a gfx....

 

[SSWilson]

I didn't come away thinking it was slanted towards Intel as much as here is what you get in this price range. Save money and get AMD or spend more for Intel and get a little more battery life which was noted in the review. Also, I think he was trying to maintain parity with the screens which can make a big difference in battery life. Is there a company that has notebooks with Nvidia chipsets where everything, including the screen manufacturer, is the same and sells both AMD and Intel on this line?

If he was really trying to slant towards Intel he could have used a "P" series processor instead of "T" and DDR3 or LED backlight, etc.

Why now? Why not now? They have to put content up and keep putting content up on the front page, even during the slow times such as now. I doubt seriously there is any conspiracy other than to keep putting up content so that people continue to visit and ad revenue continues.

 

[TheHolyLancer]

Well like I said, if on its own the timing is okay, since it is slow and all, but given that both these things are stacked up, why does this happen?

The argument for 45nm parts is of course very shaky, as intel could and should have i5 parts out by then that will simply dominate the front again.

What I really don't like is why are they so hidden about the gfx? That little sucker is a juice sucker and is just in another class...

Either put it down as a proper review, or don't put it down in general terms that every mobile machine by amd is battery hungry.

I know they are experimenting with the twitter like approach to lab updates to keep reader interested, but something this critical should not be left out.

 

[yh125d]

They publish a short review of cheap notebook battery life near a time when a lot of cheap notebooks will be purchased, and the buyers might be interested in seeing which is better on battery. When would be a better time to publish such a review? The timing is smart just from a "how many college kids are gonna google intel vs amd battery life in the next couple months" point of view

 

[TheHolyLancer]

Look, if they took an ASUS F3Ka and an ASUS F3Sa and compared them it would be a great comparision

the optional specs are:

F3Ka:
AMD Turion? 64 X2 Dual-Core Mobile Technology Processor TL-50/52/56/60, 2.0-1.6GHz, 2-CH DDR2, L2 Cache
AMD Turion? 64 X2 Dual-Core Mobile Technology Processor TK-53,1.7GHZ, L2 Cache
AMD M690G
DDR2 667 MHz SDRAM, 2 x SODIMM socket for expansion up to 4GB SDRAM
ATI Mobility? Radeon®HD 2600, External 512MB VRAM Hyper Memory up to 512MB

vs F3Sa:
Intel® Core?2 Duo Processor T7700/7500/T7300/T7100 : 2.4 GHz 800MHz,4MB L2 Cache;
Intel® Core?2 Duo Processor T5450/T5250 : 1.66 GHz 667MHz,2MB L2 Cache
Mobile Intel® 965PM + ICH8M
DDR2 667 MHz SDRAM, 2 x SODIMM socket for expansion up to 4GB SDRAM
ATI Mobility? Radeon®HD 2600, 512MB VRAM

now choose the proc, the dvd, the card reader and wifi to be the same or similar and we are go for launch.

 

[TheHolyLancer]

Originally posted by: yh125d
They publish a short review of cheap notebook battery life near a time when a lot of cheap notebooks will be purchased, and the buyers might be interested in seeing which is better on battery. When would be a better time to publish such a review? The timing is smart just from a "how many college kids are gonna google intel vs amd battery life in the next couple months" point of view

and there is a good chance that this will applied to all intel vs amd laptop battery tests, regardless of the laptop.

They are essentially giving Intel a free or almost free major advertisement (if you are cynical).


EDIT: I double posted since I was researching two good canadiate for a good fair comparison, and that actually took some time as many major manufactures have either intel with discreet or GMA and amd with IGP...

 

[yh125d]

Originally posted by: TheHolyLancer

Originally posted by: yh125d
They publish a short review of cheap notebook battery life near a time when a lot of cheap notebooks will be purchased, and the buyers might be interested in seeing which is better on battery. When would be a better time to publish such a review? The timing is smart just from a "how many college kids are gonna google intel vs amd battery life in the next couple months" point of view

and there is a good chance that this will applied to all intel vs amd laptop battery tests, regardless of the laptop.

They are essentially giving Intel a free or almost free major advertisement (if you are cynical).


EDIT: I double posted since I was researching two good canadiate for a good fair comparison, and that actually took some time as many major manufactures have either intel with discreet or GMA and amd with IGP...

Well, I don't see why the info from that article wouldn't be applicable to other comparisons of similarly configured AMD/Intel laptops. Why shouldn't it be used in consumers comparing batt life in other laptops? Obv the results won't always be the same, but it would be a safe bet to assume that with two similar laptops, the Intel will have better battery life.


You claim AT is giving Intel free advertisement because the Intel laptop faired better. Do you think maybe they just tested subjectively and found the Intel did better? Why not make the same claim in all reviews where one product is deemed "better" than the competitor? Will you claim that AT is giving AMD free advertising if they compare the next gen ATI/NV GPUs and give the favorable conclusion to ATI?


It seems like you're just angry the Intel did better...

 

[Beanie46]

Originally posted by: yh125d

It seems like you're just angry the Intel did better...

Such is the life of an AMD fanboi.....wanting to have tested a product not on the market yet, getting mad when products that are on the market are tested and the conclusion isn't what he wants it to be.

Yep....AT is definitely in Intel's pocket, unless you want to remember when AMD was putting the screws to Intel with their Athlon line and AT was hammering Intel for underperforming, hot running and too costly processors.....but, naaaaa, let's not dwell on history here, it's much more fun with conspiracy theories. TheHolyLancer, just like Sayaa on XS, sounds sort of like the Birthers.

 

[DaveSimmons]

OP is also ignoring all the favorable coverage of AMD's ATI video cards.

This was an article on what you can buy right now. It did the job pretty well.

The ATI IGP is slightly less awful than GMA for gaming, which was mentioned.

. If they wanted a fair review, get some AMD laptop and Intel laptop with the same nvidia IGP,

Find some for around $500 and post them. Most of the sub-$600 intel notebooks have intel chispets.

 

[yh125d]

There isn't a laptop IGP that can be used with AMD and Intel. Intel has GMA4500/Geforce 9400, AMD has Geforce 8200/Radeon 3200. There is no direct comparison that can be made, OP. The closest anyone can really do would be GMA4500 vs 780g or geforce 9400 vs 780g maybe


This is really about as close a comparison as there is, and AMD lost. Get over it

 

[geokilla]

Originally posted by: yh125d
There isn't a laptop IGP that can be used with AMD and Intel. Intel has GMA4500/Geforce 9400, AMD has Geforce 8200/Radeon 3200. There is no direct comparison that can be made, OP. The closest anyone can really do would be GMA4500 vs 780g or geforce 9400 vs 780g maybe


This is really about as close a comparison as there is, and AMD lost. Get over it

+1

Also mobile Intel CPUs have always used less power than the mobile AMD CPUs. Different chipsets would make a difference, but I'd guess that the difference in battery life caused by different chipsets and IGP would be up to 15 minutes max (Just a random number).

 

[TheHolyLancer]

So can we stop calling them apples to apples? All of you said that you acknowledge that the parts are different and are in different classes, so lets admit it, they ARE.

If you cannot do a true apple to apple comparison then stop calling it that, if you want a general look for battery life then state it, not an Intel vs AMD call.

And I'm not an AMD fanboy by any chance, I just don't want to see these information spoon fed to the general populace, whom is in back to school mode and thus when I go back to Uni I get all these why the fuck I can't play games crap from my dorm mates because I'm the one with the I7, CF (if the 58xx comes out) and a 1920*1200 LCD. The less Intel spoon feeding the better, esp now.

And I know that battery life and gaming are totally different things, but damn it to a standard college/uni/whom ever with some technical experience but not a lot and was introduced to anand (let's face it, we all did introduce someone to anand or toms or somewhere for their hardware needs to find benchmarks and trends) and gets this information and believes that Intel with GMA is the way to go

If you want to target those whom are going to be clueless or nearly so, chances are you want to cover all grounds, even in a short article like this. Not to mention if this gets blown out of proportion by Intel marketing and justifies their battery claims...

 

[yh125d]

Originally posted by: TheHolyLancer
So can we stop calling them apples to apples? All of you said that you acknowledge that the parts are different and are in different classes, so lets admit it, they ARE.

If you cannot do a true apple to apple comparison then stop calling it that, if you want a general look for battery life then state it, not an Intel vs AMD call.

And I'm not an AMD fanboy by any chance, I just don't want to see these information spoon fed to the general populace, whom is in back to school mode and thus when I go back to Uni I get all these why the fuck I can't play games crap from my dorm mates because I'm the one with the I7, CF (if the 58xx comes out) and a 1920*1200 LCD. The less Intel spoon feeding the better, esp now.

And I know that battery life and gaming are totally different things, but damn it to a standard college/uni/whom ever with some technical experience but not a lot and was introduced to anand (let's face it, we all did introduce someone to anand or toms or somewhere for their hardware needs to find benchmarks and trends) and gets this information and believes that Intel with GMA is the way to go

If you want to target those whom are going to be clueless or nearly so, chances are you want to cover all grounds, even in a short article like this. Not to mention if this gets blown out of proportion by Intel marketing and justifies their battery claims...

It's as close as apples to apples can really get here. Can you find two more similar AMD/Intel laptops? There will never be an intel and an AMD laptop exactly alike, so we have to deal with what we have

"I don't want to see this information spoonfed to the populace"

What the hell are you talking about? How is this any different from any other review on AT? AT did a batt life review, AMD lost, you got pretty irked by it, and you're not a fanboy? I actually prefer AMD to Intel but the review was fair...

"gets this information and believes that intel with GMA is the way to go"

Is it not the way to go? The only thing the AMD has on the intel is a better IGP, but most anyone that's playing games is going to get a laptop with discrete graphics, so that's kind of moot. So tell me, why isn't Intel a good choice?

If you want to target those whom are going to be clueless or nearly so, chances are you want to cover all grounds, even in a short article like this. Not to mention if this gets blown out of proportion by Intel marketing and justifies their battery claims..

You cannot seriously expect a full benchmark review on a 2 page article. Why should Intel not use this to justify their battery claims? Obviously they are true.

If you get so irked by AMD losing, why not write them a letter and tell them to make better mobile products, instead of boorishly claiming Intel paid for a favorable review?

CLIFFS:
OP reluctant to admit he is an AMD fanboy

 

[IlllI]

this topic is like one giant rant from thl

 

[TheHolyLancer]

Of course it's a rant, Its to call them out that if they want to do more things like the tid bits at a time thing like they said previously, if the information is going to be presented like this then I would rather if they did the full thing and then we can say.

Imagine your self a noob for now, all you life you've got OEM from your dad/mom and now you are going to college/uni/somewhere far away and needs a portable computing platform, you know ____ from your class is good with computers, and since he is busy/annoyed at you/don't want to waste his time he points you to search and read on anandtech and say see of your self. You come here, and after searching / on the frontpage if you are visiting now, and believes that Intel is the only way to go, not realizing the rationale behind why the hell AMD lost in battery (you have some ipods and cells and you know battery life is important since that time you left you cell uncharged you missed a call from your GF and got a shit storm) and thus concludes that a cheap intel is the way to go. Goes to walmart/staples/somewhere and buys the laptop with the biggest screen since you want to game on it and want it to look good for movies when explaining to your mom that the battery life is better on these (obviously leaving out the gaming and movie part) to justify for the higher price. Goes to school, goes to the first lanparty on the place after getting drunk and is wondering why are all the "geeks" laughing at you and you can't play any games.

This scenario has played out way too much with some little variations, some it's because of the price, some it's because of it's the only thing they carried, or some because they have a "gaming" desktop with a discreet card but only recognizes the intel crap since they are the only ones that runs the ads or were advertised when he is buying.

I want this ship stopped, college bound friends obviously do not say they want a graphics intensive laptop for games, most parents (including mine) will not buy that "extra" cost unless you can say something about it, and battery life has been used (believed it or not is up to you).

 

[SSWilson]

I hope nobody makes a buying decision based solely off one battery life article without any other research. I would think that most will put a little more effort into such things.

 

[TheHolyLancer]

As for I'm a fan boy of AMD, I'm only a fan boy of gaming capable computers, Intel has for the longest time set that to the curb, if they make LRB as good as they make it sound to be and it comes with computers en masse and the next retard whom brought the crap can play games with then then by far I would be happy.

Call me a fan boy all you like, but I just want performance, specifically gaming performance for all, even the most bottom barrel IQ of the whole world.


And you'd be surprised how many idiots I see...

Maybe someone whom works for something mainstream, say the geek squad can chime in on how many people tried to game on non game machine and brought it in.


And yes, I have a low hope for humanity, esp with technology if they are un-familiar with it.

 

[corkyg]

Originally posted by: IlllI
this topic is like one giant rant from thl

Amen! Out of 19 posts, 8 are from THL - a compelling case of neffus maximus.

 

[IlllI]

Originally posted by: TheHolyLancer
Of course it's a rant, Its to call them out that if they want to do more things

umm ok. i seriously doubt you will get your 'message' to them by posting it here. you should contact them directly if you think they are so wrong or whatever it is you've been ranting about (that i didn't bother to read) for the past few days

 

[heymrdj]

Originally posted by: TheHolyLancer
As for I'm a fan boy of AMD, I'm only a fan boy of gaming capable computers, Intel has for the longest time set that to the curb, if they make LRB as good as they make it sound to be and it comes with computers en masse and the next retard whom brought the crap can play games with then then by far I would be happy.

Call me a fan boy all you like, but I just want performance, specifically gaming performance for all, even the most bottom barrel IQ of the whole world.


And you'd be surprised how many idiots I see...

Maybe someone whom works for something mainstream, say the geek squad can chime in on how many people tried to game on non game machine and brought it in.


And yes, I have a low hope for humanity, esp with technology if they are un-familiar with it.

I highlighted your stupidity.

1. 500$ laptops aren't for any gaming...period. If you're stupid enough to think that you can, you deserve any loss of value possible that you experience. Hell that's a reason why you should need a license to prove your damn smart enough to own a laptop.

2. If you want to be a gaming fanboy, get a damn job and work for it. Otherwise deal with the utilitarian POS from your parents and do just that, SCHOOLWORK.

3. The Intel, in this class, is obviously the better choice. AMD loses, yet again I may add. I sure wish AMD would get their heads out of the sand and make some actually worthy competition.

4. GTFO, stop making trouble.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: SSWilson
I didn't come away thinking it was slanted towards Intel as much as here is what you get in this price range. Save money and get AMD or spend more for Intel and get a little more battery life which was noted in the review. Also, I think he was trying to maintain parity with the screens which can make a big difference in battery life. Is there a company that has notebooks with Nvidia chipsets where everything, including the screen manufacturer, is the same and sells both AMD and Intel on this line?

If he was really trying to slant towards Intel he could have used a "P" series processor instead of "T" and DDR3 or LED backlight, etc.

Why now? Why not now? They have to put content up and keep putting content up on the front page, even during the slow times such as now. I doubt seriously there is any conspiracy other than to keep putting up content so that people continue to visit and ad revenue continues.

Yeah this is exactly what I took away from it as well.

 

[TheHolyLancer]

Originally posted by: heymrdj

Originally posted by: TheHolyLancer
As for I'm a fan boy of AMD, I'm only a fan boy of gaming capable computers, Intel has for the longest time set that to the curb, if they make LRB as good as they make it sound to be and it comes with computers en masse and the next retard whom brought the crap can play games with then then by far I would be happy.

Call me a fan boy all you like, but I just want performance, specifically gaming performance for all, even the most bottom barrel IQ of the whole world.


And you'd be surprised how many idiots I see...

Maybe someone whom works for something mainstream, say the geek squad can chime in on how many people tried to game on non game machine and brought it in.


And yes, I have a low hope for humanity, esp with technology if they are un-familiar with it.

I highlighted your stupidity.

1. 500$ laptops aren't for any gaming...period. If you're stupid enough to think that you can, you deserve any loss of value possible that you experience. Hell that's a reason why you should need a license to prove your damn smart enough to own a laptop.

2. If you want to be a gaming fanboy, get a damn job and work for it. Otherwise deal with the utilitarian POS from your parents and do just that, SCHOOLWORK.

3. The Intel, in this class, is obviously the better choice. AMD loses, yet again I may add. I sure wish AMD would get their heads out of the sand and make some actually worthy competition.

4. GTFO, stop making trouble.

1. 500 dollar laptops arn't for gaming period, yes, do people try to race in a 1990 toyota POS against a Lancer Evo when they are too hyper to think? Yes and they get their asses handed to them, then unlike the cars, the idiots with the shitty laptop goes and whine, in this case, to the guy with the Lancer Evo.

2. I do, most of my good friends do too being in co-op, most of the people whom comes to me asking why the fuck _____ won't run on their POS don't, school work is a secondary thought to them. They come to party and play, not to learn.

3. C2D is obviously the better CPU, but when the article presents an apple vs apple that isn't true and set it at that while claiming intel is the better buy in most cases...

4. And if we don't make waves here due to these NEW short reviews, there will be more of these random crap of almost sensationalist titled short and non complete previews for w/e marketing department to claim support from. I'm reading the full thing now and I'm pleased with what I see so far.

 

[corkyg]

Requiescat in pace . . . .