-
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.
Hot Hardware questions the authenticity of Tom's 3.3/3.6GHz P4 article
- Thread starter NFS4
- Start date
MercenaryForHire
Lifer
TH hasn't exactly been known for being fair and unbiased in the past. Or honest for that matter. Back in the day, they were known as quite the 3dfx-haters.
And as far as this "3.6GHz P4" goes - something is rotten in the state of Tom's. Something tells me that Intel doesn't give out chips not due for production for 9 months. And the fact that has the same ident codes, voltage, etc - and no hyperthreading benchmarks ... it just gets harder and harder to believe.
- M4H
And as far as this "3.6GHz P4" goes - something is rotten in the state of Tom's. Something tells me that Intel doesn't give out chips not due for production for 9 months. And the fact that has the same ident codes, voltage, etc - and no hyperthreading benchmarks ... it just gets harder and harder to believe.
- M4H
SupermanCK
Platinum Member
interesting...:Q
MercenaryForHire
Lifer
More proof that TH is blowing smoke:
Uh ... Tom? Been smoking too much of that leafy green substance again?
Prescott is slated to run on 667MHz FSB - 666MHz if you're from the "enemy camp" as TH puts it. What was the FSB in those tests again? Right. 533MHz. I rest my case.
- M4H
Uh ... Tom? Been smoking too much of that leafy green substance again?
Prescott is slated to run on 667MHz FSB - 666MHz if you're from the "enemy camp" as TH puts it. What was the FSB in those tests again? Right. 533MHz. I rest my case.
- M4H
ACE,
from the original 3.6 Ghz thread....
You posted....
09/09/2002 3:06 PM
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Macro2
amazing how people get hyped up over a fake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is a fake? You calling Tom a liar?"
--------
I guess there is no substitute for life experience. It gets easier to spot them all the time.
Sounds like some one suckered dear ole' Tom again...
from the original 3.6 Ghz thread....
You posted....
09/09/2002 3:06 PM
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Macro2
amazing how people get hyped up over a fake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is a fake? You calling Tom a liar?"
--------
I guess there is no substitute for life experience. It gets easier to spot them all the time.
Sounds like some one suckered dear ole' Tom again...
Adul
Elite Member
Pathetic publicity stunt on HotHardware's part to drum up traffic. Comparable to posting detailed descriptions of security holes making numerous reference to the finder using the justification that you are educating the public. True or not, they should have to gone to THG first and got the answer from them before posting speculation on their front page. If at that point, if the explanation looks bogus, then you go public.
This fellow should have checked with Tom too?
"The Mysterious 3.3GHz Processor"
Ed Stroligo - 9/12/02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Facts
There is an article at Tom's Hardware which purports to review an upcoming Northwood processor.
As part of the article, there is a picture of the purported processor. Update: There was a picture of the processor, it's just been yanked, but don't worry, I saved a copy. 🙂
It has an sspec of QFF8ES A4, and a type identifier of 80531.
Type identifer 80531 was used by Intel for non-Northwood 478-pin PIVs.
If you look carefully at the first picture in this article on the 2.0 Ghz PIV Willamette, you'll see that that CPU also has an identifying code of QFF8ES A4, and a type identifier of 80531 (though it's not the same processor as the one shown in the recent article).
If you don't want to look so far, here's a far clearer picture from ardOCP (click on the first image). Again, QFF8ES A4, type identifier 80531.
Intel never recycles items like sspecs or type identifiers.
Occasionally, we've noticed websites put the wrong picture up for a processor, but the picture of the processor shows a code ending in 3.3G0K rather than 2.0G0K.
The Opinion
The only plausible legitimate explanation we can come up with for this is that the person at Intel responsible for programming the thingamajig that stamps out identifying numbers changed some parameters but not others, after all, such chips normally never see the light of day.
I think someone has some explaining to do.
"The Mysterious 3.3GHz Processor"
Ed Stroligo - 9/12/02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Facts
There is an article at Tom's Hardware which purports to review an upcoming Northwood processor.
As part of the article, there is a picture of the purported processor. Update: There was a picture of the processor, it's just been yanked, but don't worry, I saved a copy. 🙂
It has an sspec of QFF8ES A4, and a type identifier of 80531.
Type identifer 80531 was used by Intel for non-Northwood 478-pin PIVs.
If you look carefully at the first picture in this article on the 2.0 Ghz PIV Willamette, you'll see that that CPU also has an identifying code of QFF8ES A4, and a type identifier of 80531 (though it's not the same processor as the one shown in the recent article).
If you don't want to look so far, here's a far clearer picture from ardOCP (click on the first image). Again, QFF8ES A4, type identifier 80531.
Intel never recycles items like sspecs or type identifiers.
Occasionally, we've noticed websites put the wrong picture up for a processor, but the picture of the processor shows a code ending in 3.3G0K rather than 2.0G0K.
The Opinion
The only plausible legitimate explanation we can come up with for this is that the person at Intel responsible for programming the thingamajig that stamps out identifying numbers changed some parameters but not others, after all, such chips normally never see the light of day.
I think someone has some explaining to do.
"This fellow should have checked with Tom too?"
Absolutely, there is no good excuse not to. If you don't like his response, post it and then add your speculation. I'm not claiming the chip isn't bogus, it may well be, but that still doesn't excuse anyone from taking the necessary step of first approaching the actual source for an explanation before stooping to tabloid levels.
"As part of the article, there is a picture of the purported processor. Update: There was a picture of the processor, it's just been yanked, but don't worry, I saved a copy. "
Picture still shows up for me. He needs to recheck his so called facts.
"The only plausible legitimate explanation we can come up with for this is that the person at Intel responsible for programming the thingamajig that stamps out identifying numbers changed some parameters but not others, after all, such chips normally never see the light of day."
Doesn't sound like he's accusing THG of anything here claiming the most likely scenario is something amiss at Intel.
Absolutely, there is no good excuse not to. If you don't like his response, post it and then add your speculation. I'm not claiming the chip isn't bogus, it may well be, but that still doesn't excuse anyone from taking the necessary step of first approaching the actual source for an explanation before stooping to tabloid levels.
"As part of the article, there is a picture of the purported processor. Update: There was a picture of the processor, it's just been yanked, but don't worry, I saved a copy. "
Picture still shows up for me. He needs to recheck his so called facts.
"The only plausible legitimate explanation we can come up with for this is that the person at Intel responsible for programming the thingamajig that stamps out identifying numbers changed some parameters but not others, after all, such chips normally never see the light of day."
Doesn't sound like he's accusing THG of anything here claiming the most likely scenario is something amiss at Intel.
RE:"Sounds like the XP 2600+ release"
I agree.
Just like the 1.13 GHz Pentium III.
--------
Well maybe Tom isn't lying becasue he was duped by someone at intel who snuk him the chip.
Still doesn't exempt his site from looking like a stooge if the chips are fake.
These hardware sites are all the same. (save anand). They all like to get the scoop to increase readership. To think they are going to check with one another before putting up and article is tenuous at best.
When it some hype about Intel all the Intel owners Euuu and Ahhhh.
When it's AMD all the AMD lovers.....Euuu and Ahhhh...
Then everyone grows old waiting for a release for months and years...
I agree.
Just like the 1.13 GHz Pentium III.
--------
Well maybe Tom isn't lying becasue he was duped by someone at intel who snuk him the chip.
Still doesn't exempt his site from looking like a stooge if the chips are fake.
These hardware sites are all the same. (save anand). They all like to get the scoop to increase readership. To think they are going to check with one another before putting up and article is tenuous at best.
When it some hype about Intel all the Intel owners Euuu and Ahhhh.
When it's AMD all the AMD lovers.....Euuu and Ahhhh...
Then everyone grows old waiting for a release for months and years...
apoppin
Lifer
These guys are clueless in their ridiculous attempt to discredit Tom's Hardware here (he does a good enough job, elsewhere). 😉
😀
From the article:
😀
From the article:
Nowhere does he say he got a stock 3.6Ghz P4 from Intel. It is SO obvious he is O/C'ing in order to give a PICTURE of what stock cpus will be like in 10 months. If they had any sense of what the article is saying, the Photochopped picture makes sense (although it probably should have been 'disclaimered' for the extra-picky ones).
What are you, on his payroll? It's obvious what he implied in both the article and the picture. Going back and re-reading it, especially after his update, its clear what he did..NOW. But that doesnt change that he FAKED a picture. This is a news site. You dont fake pictures and its not just something that bothers "extra-picky" people.
Jesus, I cant believe you see nothign wrong with that.
Macro2,
Once again your hatred, and jealousy of Intel as spewed all over this thread. Your comments will only make you less credible when speaking about Intel or AMD in future threads.
This is not about Intel or AMD; this is about a website?s integrity. A few sites are questioning Tom?s integrity, it just so happens to be in correlation with an Intel product.
Personal, if it is fake, overclocked, or whatever! Tom should have stated so.
apoppin
Lifer
How straight do you want it?
No, NOTHING . . . absolutely nothing wrong with it - except for people who don't understand what Tom is trying to paint a picture of.
Now I CAN'T believe ANYONE actually believed that Tom possesed an actual Stock Intel 3.6Ghz CPU. Didn't you clue-in right away that he was O/C'ing? READING the article makes it pretty darn clear.
RE:"Once again your hatred, and jealousy of Intel as spewed all over this thread. Your comments will only make you less credible when speaking about Intel or AMD in future threads."
I agree. Anyone who dissagrees with you about loving Intel is spewing hatred...lol
Then again, anyone who doesn't like AMD is an Angel. Are you an Intel employee?
RE:"This is not about Intel or AMD; this is about a website?s integrity. A few sites are questioning Tom?s integrity, it just so happens to be in correlation with an Intel product."
Well, that I agree with. Just to balance it out heres a fake picture of a Hammer 5200+.
LINK FOR NOX
I agree. Anyone who dissagrees with you about loving Intel is spewing hatred...lol
Then again, anyone who doesn't like AMD is an Angel. Are you an Intel employee?
RE:"This is not about Intel or AMD; this is about a website?s integrity. A few sites are questioning Tom?s integrity, it just so happens to be in correlation with an Intel product."
Well, that I agree with. Just to balance it out heres a fake picture of a Hammer 5200+.
LINK FOR NOX
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
