Irate AnandTech readers turn on reviewer
Absurd
Here
By Mario Rodrigues: Monday 09 August 2004, 22:46
AN ANANDTECH review titled: "Linux and EM64T; Intel's 64-bit Suggestion" hasn?t been very well received by AnandTech readers who have commented on the article. To say that they are unhappy would be an understatement. Here are some of their curt observations:
"What the hell made you run a 3.6 ghz Nocona vs the 3500+?!? Try running it against an Opteron 150! For crying out loud . ."
"this was probably the worst comparison ever. At least give us some game benchmarks like UT2004 64bit and let us see some real numbers"
"Sorry Kristopher, but this was a BAD article. There's not nearly enough information to draw any useful conclusions."
"Is it just me or is a Server/Workstation CPU v. Desktop CPU comparision anything but apples to apples? Perhapse apples to pears at best? Could please re-run every test with the correct hardware?"
"Even a intel fanyboy has to laugh at how off sided this failure of a "review" was."
"Come on anandtech, if we wanted to read stuff like this we go to tom's"
"ANANDTECH in our next review, we'd like to show your how an AthlonFX53 compares to a 2.8Ghz Celeron"
........."as you can see, the Celeron just cannot keep up with the AMD monster, looks like intel is really going to have to pick up the pace or AMD could rule the frickin' world with this new behemoth"
That was just a sample of the 70 plus and growing comments that have been registered. The author did try to defend his position by saying:
"The only reason we even put the 3500+ in there is cause we already had benchmarks for it."
"Relax, its just a primer for future articles. A 3.6F is supposed to compare with a "3600+" rated Athlon 64 isnt it? Since we dont have a 3600+ the 3500+ should perform slightly lower? Isnt this what we expected? And for those of you who dont believe me, a 3.6GHz 1MB EM64T Nocona is *exactly* like a 3.6F."
"I thought the AMD chip did pretty damn good for costing $500 less!"
Just a primer? Look at the concluding section?s second paragraph:
"Without a doubt, the 3.6GHz Xeon trounces over the Athlon 64 in math-intensive benchmarks. Intel came ahead in every severe benchmark that we could throw at it, particularly during John the Ripper. Even though John uses several different optimizations to generate hashes, in every case, the Athlon chip found itself at least 40% behind. Much of this is likely attributed to the additional math tweaking in the Prescott family core."
If the author had said that the "fastest 3.6GHz Xeon trounced the slowest socket 939 Athlon 64 in math-intensive benchmarks at $500 more in cost", that would have put the paragraph in context. But as it currently stands, someone at Intel Corp. will no doubt use the AnandTech quote for the chip giant?s next round of Xeon promotional material. Intel will be happy, if it understands "happy". µ
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17754
Absurd
Here
By Mario Rodrigues: Monday 09 August 2004, 22:46
AN ANANDTECH review titled: "Linux and EM64T; Intel's 64-bit Suggestion" hasn?t been very well received by AnandTech readers who have commented on the article. To say that they are unhappy would be an understatement. Here are some of their curt observations:
"What the hell made you run a 3.6 ghz Nocona vs the 3500+?!? Try running it against an Opteron 150! For crying out loud . ."
"this was probably the worst comparison ever. At least give us some game benchmarks like UT2004 64bit and let us see some real numbers"
"Sorry Kristopher, but this was a BAD article. There's not nearly enough information to draw any useful conclusions."
"Is it just me or is a Server/Workstation CPU v. Desktop CPU comparision anything but apples to apples? Perhapse apples to pears at best? Could please re-run every test with the correct hardware?"
"Even a intel fanyboy has to laugh at how off sided this failure of a "review" was."
"Come on anandtech, if we wanted to read stuff like this we go to tom's"
"ANANDTECH in our next review, we'd like to show your how an AthlonFX53 compares to a 2.8Ghz Celeron"
........."as you can see, the Celeron just cannot keep up with the AMD monster, looks like intel is really going to have to pick up the pace or AMD could rule the frickin' world with this new behemoth"
That was just a sample of the 70 plus and growing comments that have been registered. The author did try to defend his position by saying:
"The only reason we even put the 3500+ in there is cause we already had benchmarks for it."
"Relax, its just a primer for future articles. A 3.6F is supposed to compare with a "3600+" rated Athlon 64 isnt it? Since we dont have a 3600+ the 3500+ should perform slightly lower? Isnt this what we expected? And for those of you who dont believe me, a 3.6GHz 1MB EM64T Nocona is *exactly* like a 3.6F."
"I thought the AMD chip did pretty damn good for costing $500 less!"
Just a primer? Look at the concluding section?s second paragraph:
"Without a doubt, the 3.6GHz Xeon trounces over the Athlon 64 in math-intensive benchmarks. Intel came ahead in every severe benchmark that we could throw at it, particularly during John the Ripper. Even though John uses several different optimizations to generate hashes, in every case, the Athlon chip found itself at least 40% behind. Much of this is likely attributed to the additional math tweaking in the Prescott family core."
If the author had said that the "fastest 3.6GHz Xeon trounced the slowest socket 939 Athlon 64 in math-intensive benchmarks at $500 more in cost", that would have put the paragraph in context. But as it currently stands, someone at Intel Corp. will no doubt use the AnandTech quote for the chip giant?s next round of Xeon promotional material. Intel will be happy, if it understands "happy". µ
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17754
If KK does it, I'll want to know if he had adult supervision and passed a drug screening 
Facebook
Twitter