Oh, well, they asked for royalty fee on a product that belonged to them since 1990 
The horror !
The horror !
Ya but even with that they worship the stuff and flaunt how cheap it is even after the Rambus royalties. The sediment is a concotion, mixed of ignorance and bull headedness that the world is drunk on, might wanna try some theropy groups.
And since were so off topic: Your so fat when you haul ass it takes two trips
And since were so off topic: Your so fat when you haul ass it takes two trips
Look: the long and the short of it is that the burden of proof is on you. If you want to claim that Evan Lieb and anandtech have bias, then I encourage you to do just that. However, Evan responded to your first claim--that anandtech was using a slower processor to make rambus and rdram look bad and refuted it, citing that rambus' performance vis a vis the new chipset is not determined by the cpu in his testing and in the testing of others.
So what you have is a vague sense that anandtech is trying to pay the bills by catering to advertisers, giving favorable reviews to their products. Do you have any proof of this? no. So find some or you'll go the way of GUTB.
So what you have is a vague sense that anandtech is trying to pay the bills by catering to advertisers, giving favorable reviews to their products. Do you have any proof of this? no. So find some or you'll go the way of GUTB.
Hey, again, I've done due diligence. It's all out on the table here in this thread
You don't have to believe it if you don't want to. I certainly can't force you.Well, I merely pointed out that most other benchmarkers who did a test of this chipset did it right: with a 3.06 HT cpu and the best components they could find. After all, this IS the fastest supposed DDR chipset on the market, correct?
Like I said... The right tool for the job.
Oh, the sense isn't vague at all.
My "Sense" is vindicated every time I see one benchmark site claiming "X", and another claiming "X+10%", and yet another claiming "X-10%" on any given benchmark, and all on identical hardware. That's why I say the only objective way to gauge system performance is to do these benchmarks *yourself*. This "sense" could be nothing more than how they build a system. Of course, realistically I know they have bills to pay, and no one is going to advertise their gear on a site if they're not giving it a favorable review.
I'd like to know just how do YOU think Anandtech is "paying the bills"?
How can you say its obsolete? It performs about the same if not better than DDR boards.
DX2: Im in Ft. Lauderdale too!
Cheeburger Cheeburger is good
Cool got some friends in Weston, used to go to University School of Nova Southeastern University for high school
Cool got some friends in Weston, used to go to University School of Nova Southeastern University for high school
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Your review doesn't state that. And I see no reason why you wouldn't make it "official" in the first place.
Why would I? Honestly, if it makes no difference which CPU I use, and you're basically the only person who's asking for this type of information, I really have no reason to even mention it in a review. But if you ask this question through email, I will (and did in fact) answer your question.
After all the benchmarks that have been posted by other hardware sites (thanks to the people who brought them to light), I don't see how anyone can claim there's a "clear winner".
I agree, there is no clear winner, which is why I've stated in my SiS 655 reviews that the margin of victory over RDRAM is very slim.
Hey, when I stand corrected, I stand corrected. But sorry, it wasn't your review that did it.
OK, but again, I did do the testing in-house, and found out that the results don't change until you start reaching 3.2GHz (HT enabled). And even at 3.2GHz the results are favoring the SiS 655 in dual DDR400 mode slightly more than PC1066 RDRAM. In other words, if SiS 655 won out most of the benchmarks at 2.26GHz and not at 3GHz, I would have added in comments and benchmarks results revealing this information. That was not the case. Either way, I'm glad we've cleared up the CPU scaling issue.
I *HAVE* done my own benchmarks of my OWN personal system. They're posted for all to see. They even closely correlate with the other reviews that have been posted here.
I'll be the first to say that it's nearly impossible to accurately compare your benchmarks to other web site reviewer's benchmarks unless you know exactly what hardware, BIOS settings, WCPUID results, etc. they were using. A better idea would be for you to purchase an SiS 655 board and two sticks of good DDR400 memory and run the same benchmarks you did on the RDRAM system and see what happens.
My point is that that Team DDR has had FAR more time to beat the 850E than it needed, if you agree with public sentiment. And now that it has "beaten" it as you so claim, it's done so by a margin of almost nil. If you want to consider this a supreme victory over RDRAM, feel free. I still think RDRAM has *PLENTY* of gas, WAY more of it than DDR. You can promote DDR til your heart's content, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a failing technology.
I completely agree with you actually, DDR has had lots of time to beat RDRAM, and only done so just recently by a very thin margin. I also think RDRAM has loads of potential left, despite what the Rambus-bashers like to believe. I've actually met and talked to several engineers at Rambus (a couple just last week), where we've discussed FlexPhase, Yellowstone, Redwood, etc. Quite frankly, it was great to see how excited these guys were about these technologies, and how much time and effort they are still spending on improving their technology.
I don't find you to be a particularly objective reviewer, just as you don't find me to be a particularly objective reader.
That's fine, believe what you want to believe, I don't have a problem with that. Though I'd just like to make it clear that our advertising is done exclusively by another company. Personally, I could care less what banners we have up on the site, let alone knowing exactly which ones are on the main site on a daily basis.
But your attack on my credibility based on me being a RMBS investor? That argument is as weak as they come, and I expected more professionalism.
Actually, that's what I was told by that fellow over at HardOCP who emailed me about your comments a couple weeks ago. In all honestly, I was just mud slinging with that comment, investing in the company you know so much about don't make your comments less objective. I apoligize for any comments that may have come off harsh, I was just a bit surprised by the whole CPU scaling matter.
Anyway, I'm still open to any sugggestions you may have about future motherboard reviews. Anything you'd like to see in the ABIT SI7 (R658) review or R659 (a ways off) review?
Why would I? Honestly, if it makes no difference which CPU I use, and you're basically the only person who's asking for this type of information, I really have no reason to even mention it in a review. But if you ask this question through email, I will (and did in fact) answer your question.
After all the benchmarks that have been posted by other hardware sites (thanks to the people who brought them to light), I don't see how anyone can claim there's a "clear winner".
I agree, there is no clear winner, which is why I've stated in my SiS 655 reviews that the margin of victory over RDRAM is very slim.
Hey, when I stand corrected, I stand corrected. But sorry, it wasn't your review that did it.
OK, but again, I did do the testing in-house, and found out that the results don't change until you start reaching 3.2GHz (HT enabled). And even at 3.2GHz the results are favoring the SiS 655 in dual DDR400 mode slightly more than PC1066 RDRAM. In other words, if SiS 655 won out most of the benchmarks at 2.26GHz and not at 3GHz, I would have added in comments and benchmarks results revealing this information. That was not the case. Either way, I'm glad we've cleared up the CPU scaling issue.
I *HAVE* done my own benchmarks of my OWN personal system. They're posted for all to see. They even closely correlate with the other reviews that have been posted here.
I'll be the first to say that it's nearly impossible to accurately compare your benchmarks to other web site reviewer's benchmarks unless you know exactly what hardware, BIOS settings, WCPUID results, etc. they were using. A better idea would be for you to purchase an SiS 655 board and two sticks of good DDR400 memory and run the same benchmarks you did on the RDRAM system and see what happens.
My point is that that Team DDR has had FAR more time to beat the 850E than it needed, if you agree with public sentiment. And now that it has "beaten" it as you so claim, it's done so by a margin of almost nil. If you want to consider this a supreme victory over RDRAM, feel free. I still think RDRAM has *PLENTY* of gas, WAY more of it than DDR. You can promote DDR til your heart's content, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a failing technology.
I completely agree with you actually, DDR has had lots of time to beat RDRAM, and only done so just recently by a very thin margin. I also think RDRAM has loads of potential left, despite what the Rambus-bashers like to believe. I've actually met and talked to several engineers at Rambus (a couple just last week), where we've discussed FlexPhase, Yellowstone, Redwood, etc. Quite frankly, it was great to see how excited these guys were about these technologies, and how much time and effort they are still spending on improving their technology.
I don't find you to be a particularly objective reviewer, just as you don't find me to be a particularly objective reader.
That's fine, believe what you want to believe, I don't have a problem with that. Though I'd just like to make it clear that our advertising is done exclusively by another company. Personally, I could care less what banners we have up on the site, let alone knowing exactly which ones are on the main site on a daily basis.
But your attack on my credibility based on me being a RMBS investor? That argument is as weak as they come, and I expected more professionalism.
Actually, that's what I was told by that fellow over at HardOCP who emailed me about your comments a couple weeks ago. In all honestly, I was just mud slinging with that comment, investing in the company you know so much about don't make your comments less objective. I apoligize for any comments that may have come off harsh, I was just a bit surprised by the whole CPU scaling matter.
Anyway, I'm still open to any sugggestions you may have about future motherboard reviews. Anything you'd like to see in the ABIT SI7 (R658) review or R659 (a ways off) review?
ScrapSilicon
Lifer
- Apr 14, 2001
- 13,625
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: ScrapSilicon
Evan Lieb =
I second that! Here is another example of why Anandtech is DA best! They dont simply kick out forum members coz they dissect the methods used by them(dunnno what the GUTB situation was though). Unlike some sites that have done so in the recent past....
Your review doesn't state that. And I see no reason why you wouldn't make it "official" in the first place.
Why would I? Honestly, if it makes no difference which CPU I use, and you're basically the only person who's asking for this type of information, I really have no reason to even mention it in a review. But if you ask this question through email, I will (and did in fact) answer your question.
Solely for completeness sake... Basically, your review was quickly made obsolete by other websites that covered it with appropriate high end hardware, So you're right. At this point, it makes no difference.
And no, this is not a flame or anything, just fact. If you had tested the 2.26 and a 3.06, it would have shut up people like me. It just seems like all the boards that gets tested are done so with high-end CPU's.
If your point was to reflect the "everyday" system, that's COMPLETELY valid. But *I* think you should have at *least* put the high-end on the bench as well. Again, if for nothing else just to shut up people like me. After all, we *DID* have to leave anandtech to find out how it performed on a 3.06, right?
I'll be the first to say that it's nearly impossible to accurately compare your benchmarks to other web site reviewer's benchmarks unless you know exactly what hardware, BIOS settings, WCPUID results, etc. they were using. A better idea would be for you to purchase an SiS 655 board and two sticks of good DDR400 memory and run the same benchmarks you did on the RDRAM system and see what happens.
Agreed. There's way too many factors, and you're right. The only way to know for sure is to do it all yourself.
I completely agree with you actually, DDR has had lots of time to beat RDRAM, and only done so just recently by a very thin margin. I also think RDRAM has loads of potential left, despite what the Rambus-bashers like to believe. I've actually met and talked to several engineers at Rambus (a couple just last week), where we've discussed FlexPhase, Yellowstone, Redwood, etc. Quite frankly, it was great to see how excited these guys were about these technologies, and how much time and effort they are still spending on improving their technology.
So much for my being "misinformed" about Rambus, eh? Honestly, I'm glad you had an opportunity to speak with them. I'm always in awe of just how smart those guys are.
Actually, that's what I was told by that fellow over at HardOCP who emailed me about your comments a couple weeks ago. In all honestly, I was just mud slinging with that comment, investing in the company you know so much about don't make your comments less objective. I apoligize for any comments that may have come off harsh, I was just a bit surprised by the whole CPU scaling matter.
Fair enough. Glad we could clear the air.
Anyway, I'm still open to any sugggestions you may have about future motherboard reviews. Anything you'd like to see in the ABIT SI7 (R658) review or R659 (a ways off) review?
Nothing special. Just test the living crap out of it.
Why would I? Honestly, if it makes no difference which CPU I use, and you're basically the only person who's asking for this type of information, I really have no reason to even mention it in a review. But if you ask this question through email, I will (and did in fact) answer your question.
Solely for completeness sake... Basically, your review was quickly made obsolete by other websites that covered it with appropriate high end hardware, So you're right. At this point, it makes no difference.
And no, this is not a flame or anything, just fact. If you had tested the 2.26 and a 3.06, it would have shut up people like me. It just seems like all the boards that gets tested are done so with high-end CPU's.
If your point was to reflect the "everyday" system, that's COMPLETELY valid. But *I* think you should have at *least* put the high-end on the bench as well. Again, if for nothing else just to shut up people like me. After all, we *DID* have to leave anandtech to find out how it performed on a 3.06, right?
I'll be the first to say that it's nearly impossible to accurately compare your benchmarks to other web site reviewer's benchmarks unless you know exactly what hardware, BIOS settings, WCPUID results, etc. they were using. A better idea would be for you to purchase an SiS 655 board and two sticks of good DDR400 memory and run the same benchmarks you did on the RDRAM system and see what happens.
Agreed. There's way too many factors, and you're right. The only way to know for sure is to do it all yourself.
I completely agree with you actually, DDR has had lots of time to beat RDRAM, and only done so just recently by a very thin margin. I also think RDRAM has loads of potential left, despite what the Rambus-bashers like to believe. I've actually met and talked to several engineers at Rambus (a couple just last week), where we've discussed FlexPhase, Yellowstone, Redwood, etc. Quite frankly, it was great to see how excited these guys were about these technologies, and how much time and effort they are still spending on improving their technology.
So much for my being "misinformed" about Rambus, eh?
Honestly, I'm glad you had an opportunity to speak with them. I'm always in awe of just how smart those guys are. Actually, that's what I was told by that fellow over at HardOCP who emailed me about your comments a couple weeks ago. In all honestly, I was just mud slinging with that comment, investing in the company you know so much about don't make your comments less objective. I apoligize for any comments that may have come off harsh, I was just a bit surprised by the whole CPU scaling matter.
Fair enough. Glad we could clear the air.
Anyway, I'm still open to any sugggestions you may have about future motherboard reviews. Anything you'd like to see in the ABIT SI7 (R658) review or R659 (a ways off) review?
Nothing special. Just test the living crap out of it.
Originally posted by: Krk3561
How can you say its obsolete? It performs about the same if not better than DDR boards.
DX2: Im in Ft. Lauderdale too!
Sorry, buddy. Wrong. If they don't want to use an obselete board, they'll have to use one that overclocks like crap. The gigabyte G8INXP.
Most boards have no USB2.0, no firewire, none of the features that ICH4 brings over ICH2. The problem is that while the northbridge doesn't evolve, neither does the south. And there are certian 'features' comming very soon that will make the i850E look very undesirable. Like SATA built into the south bridge.
You're right... but none of those features are relevant right now (at least, not relevant enough to be on the southbridge and care about it).
P4T533 has USB2 via a NEC controller, But yeah. Tighter integration on the SB is nice.
Firewire? Hell, every audigy has that. (oh, btw, the newest Audigy drivers from Feb 11 are awesome
fixed all the Hyperthreading bugs)SATA? How about some DRIVES that outperform PATA first?
Then i'll consider this relevant.AGP8X? Zero impact now, and by the time it *IS* relevant, it will have been replaced by PCI Express. AGP's days are numbered, and it's about time it went away. I don't even know why they bothered with AGP8X to begin with.
But yeah, you're right, it's all relevant... *EVENTUALLY*.
If i'm not mistaken, USB2 and firewire sollutions that are external suck down PCI bus bandwidth
Same thing with those external gigabit ethernet cards (MAN, those can SATURATE your PCI bus *BAD* if you're dealing with transfering around files with RAID arrays)
But that's not all too important right now. The important thing is that with Intel's support gone from RAMBUS now RAMBUS chipsets are going to loose popularity. With RAMBUS now a sitting duck in terms of technical features on the southbridge until the R658 and R659 come out, and even then being third party chipsets....... RAMBUS's future on the P4 architecture looks uncertain even with SiS's support. I know I wouldn't feel comfortable buying any RAMBUS memories right now.
Same thing with those external gigabit ethernet cards (MAN, those can SATURATE your PCI bus *BAD* if you're dealing with transfering around files with RAID arrays)
But that's not all too important right now. The important thing is that with Intel's support gone from RAMBUS now RAMBUS chipsets are going to loose popularity. With RAMBUS now a sitting duck in terms of technical features on the southbridge until the R658 and R659 come out, and even then being third party chipsets....... RAMBUS's future on the P4 architecture looks uncertain even with SiS's support. I know I wouldn't feel comfortable buying any RAMBUS memories right now.
Well, I just did about a month ago when I built my 3.06 box. And I had no reservations about doing so I wouldn't hesitate recommending it to anyone else.
The chipset is mature, fast, and completely viable for a high end system.
I wouldn't hesitate recommending it to anyone else. The chipset is mature, fast, and completely viable for a high end system.
Originally posted by: FishTankX
Originally posted by: Krk3561
How can you say its obsolete? It performs about the same if not better than DDR boards.
DX2: Im in Ft. Lauderdale too!
Sorry, buddy. Wrong. If they don't want to use an obselete board, they'll have to use one that overclocks like crap. The gigabyte G8INXP.
Most boards have no USB2.0, no firewire, none of the features that ICH4 brings over ICH2. The problem is that while the northbridge doesn't evolve, neither does the south. And there are certian 'features' comming very soon that will make the i850E look very undesirable. Like SATA built into the south bridge.
Errr... didn't gigabyte pair up the ICH4 south bridge with the 850e northbridge on the 8ihxp? As far as I know, ICH4 is the top of the line South Bridge from intel.
CH2
Eek! Typo.
Yeah, I *meant* the Gigabyte 8IHXP. But first off, it's horrifically expensive. More than most granite bay boards. Second of all, from what i've heard it's an extremley poor overclocker. The combination of those two things will scare off most enthusiasts. It's a very good stock performer, though,j so i'd imagine if Dell uses an i850E board it's either going to be intel or gigabyte.
Yeah, I *meant* the Gigabyte 8IHXP. But first off, it's horrifically expensive. More than most granite bay boards. Second of all, from what i've heard it's an extremley poor overclocker. The combination of those two things will scare off most enthusiasts. It's a very good stock performer, though,j so i'd imagine if Dell uses an i850E board it's either going to be intel or gigabyte.
Seems like a common story with Giga-byte... their boards are either hit or miss. Luckily, the 8inxp I just got is a hit.
CH2
Ice9,
Here is another 655 review @ GamePC. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I did notice they tested with the 3.06.
CH2
-----------------
EDIT
Just read the review... Ignore the MSI-GNB Max results... it's running at "factory" overclocked speeds (i.e. 140 fsb). Shame on both MSI for doing this out of the box and GamePC for including it in the review. Overclocking is a great thing...WHEN I CHOOSE TO DO IT!!!
CH2
Here is another 655 review @ GamePC. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I did notice they tested with the 3.06.
CH2
-----------------
EDIT
Just read the review... Ignore the MSI-GNB Max results... it's running at "factory" overclocked speeds (i.e. 140 fsb). Shame on both MSI for doing this out of the box and GamePC for including it in the review. Overclocking is a great thing...WHEN I CHOOSE TO DO IT!!!
CH2
I would like to see reviews pitted up against the Asus P4T533 as well. Every review of the P4T533 shows it ahead of the Asus P4T533-C so I would think that it would be used when a top of the line review is done instead, but it isnt. The slight margins that we are talking about here would warrent such when crowning one or another the king. Its like choosing a Camaro Z28 to represent the fastest Camaro when there is the SS, the 15 extra hp that the SS has might just mean the win when its a photo-finish.
Although might not matter by time we get to the next generation of RDRAM chipsets, maybe could do on next (R655) review.
Fifty Hynix executives resign, says report
BTW: The GA-8IHXP is $155 @ Newegg right now. My GA-8IHXP is great by the way
BTW: The GA-8IHXP is $155 @ Newegg right now. My GA-8IHXP is great by the way
I tried, as did others, to politely rebut some of the erroneous statements Ice9 made. That was a serious mistake because in return I get this from her: "RESEARCH, people... RESEARCH. UNDERSTAND why semiconductor markets are failing. And UNDERSTAND why there's some that are standing despite poor market conditions. Geez"
Is that a know-it-all arsehole or what?
Somehow it reminds me of the attitude of shysters like Jack Grubbyman and the Citi management that fed off his criminal activity.
Sorry all. I'm otta this thread for good. Bye.
Is that a know-it-all arsehole or what?
Somehow it reminds me of the attitude of shysters like Jack Grubbyman and the Citi management that fed off his criminal activity.
Sorry all. I'm otta this thread for good. Bye.
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: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter