• 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.

Pabst [tomshardware] is pretty mean to Intel....

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Tom is biased. he hates intel, but he has always given intel their due. back in the day of the cyrix, amd and intel, when a lotta ppl were jumpin on the cyrix wagon, tom said that intel was still better, he hoped always hoped that someone would do better than intel and that always showed in his reviews, hence his bias, but he usually gave the facts first.

unfortunately whoever did the Heat sink reviews for tom weren't as true to the facts. in my opinion that is just a bad review.
 
It comes down the rhetoric or spin you want to put on an article. Like Tom?s ??exaggerated? ? performance of the Duron over the Celeron.

Toms ? BAPCO SysMark 2000 ?

Duron 800 ? ? 140
Celeron 766 ? ? 126

OK ? the Duron has a 11% advantage (with a 4.5% clock advantage) ? ? whoopee ding ?? probably not even noticeable ? ?and Tom describes this ? ?

<< ? ?The Duron body slams the Celeron again and again in the Intel friendly Bapco SysMark2000 business application ? ?? >>

Huh? ??Body Slams???.Tom has been watching too much WWF.

Heck, ? the Celeron beat a K6-2 by 11% in Tom's ... Business Winstone99 ... tests but ?

K2-400 .... 19.0
Cel 400 ... 21.1
P2 400 .... 21.6

Tom puts a quite different spin on the results for 400mhz CPU?s ?

<< ? ? In other words, even the cheapest systems you can buy today will still provide more than enough power to run Word or Excel. This is why the importance of Winstone scores is certainly decreasing. Today?s PC are used for a lot more than just office applications. 3D-gaming, video editing, 3D-modelling, sound editing and many other things are the really power hungry applications of today and it?s not only a minority anymore that runs those applications. So let?s be aware that a high Winstone score does not automatically make a CPU a great overall performer. This is certainly different compared to two years ago. >>

Nothing about the Celeron grinding the K6-2 into oblivion in Business Winstone 99.

And perhaps Tom?s anti-Intel rhetoric is letting bias into his reviews. First, he?s been ranting overblown claims about how badly the Duron beats a Celeron, then, when he does a review of the Duron on a integrated m/b, the Celeron is nowhere to be found, he compares it to another Duron on a non-integrated m/b. Hmmmmm ? maybe Tom just didn?t want to look stupid because once you put the Duron on an integrated m/b the performance difference between it and the Celeron for the most part drops to nothing.
 


<< It comes down the rhetoric or spin you want to put on an article. Like Tom?s ??exaggerated? ? performance of the Duron over the Celeron.

Toms ? BAPCO SysMark 2000 ?

Duron 800 ? ? 140
Celeron 766 ? ? 126

OK ? the Duron has a 11% advantage (with a 4.5% clock advantage) ? ? whoopee ding ?? probably not even noticeable ? ?and Tom describes this ? ? ?The Duron body slams the Celeron again and again in the Intel friendly Bapco SysMark2000 business application ? ??Huh? ??Body Slams???.Tom has been watching too much WWF. >>


This article was not written by Tom it was written by one of his lackeys, Van Smith, who must have really liked the WWF at the time.



<< Heck, ? the Celeron beat a K6-2 by 11% in Tom's ... Business Winstone99 ... tests but ?

K2-400 .... 19.0
Cel 400 ... 21.1
P2 400 .... 21.6

Tom puts a quite different spin on the results for 400mhz CPU?s ? ? In other words, even the cheapest systems you can buy today will still provide more than enough power to run Word or Excel. This is why the importance of Winstone scores is certainly decreasing. Today?s PC are used for a lot more than just office applications. 3D-gaming, video editing, 3D-modelling, sound editing and many other things are the really power hungry applications of today and it?s not only a minority anymore that runs those applications. So let?s be aware that a high Winstone score does not automatically make a CPU a great overall performer. This is certainly different compared to two years ago. Nothing about the Celeron grinding the K6-2 into oblivion in Business Winstone 99. >>


Those are two separate bench marks and comparisons between differences are difficult at best, to make.



<< And perhaps Tom?s anti-Intel rhetoric is letting bias into his reviews. First, he?s been ranting overblown claims about how badly the Duron beats a Celeron, then, when he does a review of the Duron on a integrated m/b, the Celeron is nowhere to be found, he compares it to another Duron on a non-integrated m/b. Hmmmmm ? maybe Tom just didn?t want to look stupid because once you put the Duron on an integrated M/B the performance difference between it and the Celeron for the most part drops to nothing. >>


I also think that Tom and his articles have a definite bias toward AMD, but I think that he does try to keep the comparisons fair. In the first article you mentioned neither the Celeron nor the Duron was on an integrated chipset, so the comparison is valid. Then with the last article you mentioned the processors were kept the same and ONLY the motherboard was changed to see what difference that made. He wasn't trying to compare Duron to Seleron there, just integrated to non-integrated chipsets. a more thorough covering would have included integrated and non-integrated chipsets for Celeron and Duron side by side, but maybe he didn't have enough time on his hands.
 
i hate to say this, but the duron does body slam the celeron.

im no intel hater, nor do i think amd is the greatest thing since sliced bread. i like both intel and amd, and i love the competition between them, it keeps both companies working hard at bringing us the best products and it keeps the prices low, (gezz i remember pentII's costing near $1,000 and now you never see cpu's over $500 and often times much much less)

but if you critize tom for saying the duron body slams the celeron, hehehe well then i think your a little off.
 
Actually, if the rumors turn out to be true, you WILL see a processor for more than 500$. Who's selling it? Intel of course, it's the 1.8 GHz p4, priced at 560-some-odd dollars. Why? Cuz they can get away with it, of course. If I were in their place I'd do the exact same thing.

Now I know this is gonna rub a lot of people the wrong way, but if i were in the chip business, my target consumer would definetly not be the computer enthusiasts who understand that MHz (or GHz these days) are not everything. Heck I'd target the masses of people who don't know their elbows from their ass as far as CPUs go and businesses. Why? cuz THAT is where the money is, not from the guy that's gonna look all over the net for the processor with the best price/performance ratio.

Now how does this relate, to Tom's bias? IMHO, his bias doesn't change much since it targets that minority of people that understand enough to draw their own conclusions from benchmarks and that probably read more than one review anyways.

Bottom line, I think Tom is slightly biased against Intel, but who cares? Odds are, if you're reading this post, you're probably capable of drawing your own conclusions instead of being spoonfed a conclusion by someone whether he is biased or not.

Rereading this post it seems a little harsh towards P4 owners, but believe me it is not meant to sound that way, it just came out like that. And if you still think I'm biased against Intel, know that I own a PIII and I am very happy with it.

-Ice
 


<< ?i hate to say this, but the duron does body slam the celeron. >>



I've seen more exaggerated performance claims for the Duron than I can shake a stick at and the Celeron is a lot closer on the majority of applications than a lot of people would have you believe.

Sysmark 2000 contains the following 12 applications ?

MetaCreations Bryce® 4
Avid* Elastic Reality® 3.1
Adobe Photoshop® 5.5
Adobe Premiere® 5.1
Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 4.0.
Corel CorelDRAW® 9.0
Microsoft Excel 2000
Dragon NaturallySpeaking® Preferred 4.0
Netscape Communicator® 4.61
Corel Paradox® 9.0
Microsoft PowerPoint® 2000
Microsoft Word 2000

Consider that in the THG review the Duron 800 only beat a Celeron 766 on these 12 applications by 11% with a 4.5% cock advantage. Move the Celeron up to 800mhz and it also moves from a 66mhz bus to a 100mhz one. The margin on these 12 applications between the 2 processors is going to be paper thin.
 
What a freaking laugh.

You clowns calling Pabst anti-Intel are the same ones who were praising him at other times. He's written articles / portions of articles that could easily be construed as anti-AMD as well. You just can't have it both ways.
 
Tom is opinionated, but as other people have said, he always distinguishes the fact from opinion.

I don't mind that. I kinda like the fact that the review has an opinion on a product one way or another -- so long as he also shows me the facts that caused that opinion to be created.

Tom does it the right way. For an example of the wrong way, look at some of the articles that Sharkey's old place used to put out. Biases that &quot;change&quot; facts, I have problems with.
 


<< The blue guys cater to the warm and fuzzy audience who know jack about computers execpt what they see on telelvision. Thats their audience, the undecided. >>



True.
 
Blastman wrote:


<< I've seen more exaggerated performance claims for the Duron than I can shake a stick at and the Celeron is a lot closer on the majority of applications than a lot of people would have you believe.
Consider that in the THG review the Duron 800 only beat a Celeron 766 on these 12 applications by 11% with a 4.5% cock advantage. Move the Celeron up to 800mhz and it also moves from a 66mhz bus to a 100mhz one. The margin on these 12 applications between the 2 processors is going to be paper thin. >>




Paper thin huh? Well here is a review of your 800mhz 100mhz FSB Celeron vs a Duron
Q3 Duron 800.............121fps
Q3 Duron 600.............105fps
Q3 Celeron 800 (100fsb)..104fps

UT Duron 800.............76fps
UT Duron 600.............67fps
UT Celeron 800 (100fsb)..68fps

MDK2 Duron 800............121
MDK2 Duron 600............103
MDK2 Celeron 800 (100fsb).106

Expendable Duron 800............80
Expendable Duron 600............70
Expendable Celeron 800 (100fsb).69

The celeron is tight with the duron 600 in the majority of benchmarks so in order for the Celeron to compete with the duron 800, it would need to be roughly 1066 mhz if the benches scaled linearly. Do you call that 'paper thin'?
 
BTW- to All of you who are crying that the good Dr is biased-

Yes IMO I'd say that he is. But go back to the P III 1.13 introduction. Read the glowing reports of it's outstanding performance and it's lead over the Slot A Athlon. God knows that there were several sites that literally prostated themselves to the &quot;Great Intel&quot;.

And then there was Tom Pabst. He thought it was a good chip, but he couldn't get a couple of benchmarks to work in it- to the point where it would ruin the chip. After talking with others who had reviewed it- he found another that had the same problem- Kyle Bennett over at HardOCP. After more skull sweat they realized that Intel was releasing a POS to the general public. They both refused to be &quot;bought off&quot;. After a couple of weeks of claiming it didn't have a problem, Intel pulled the chip when it was proven to have a problem.

As far as him being biased : On a variation of &quot;If you can do it,then it ain't braggin'&quot;- &quot;If he's right, then it ain't bias&quot;
 
meh, i didnt mean to start a war. just commenting... um. well, he does seem biased, but i guess his feelings are correct however.. ?
 


<< It comes down the rhetoric or spin you want to put on an article. Like Tom&Acirc;?s &Acirc;?&Acirc;?exaggerated&Acirc;? &Acirc;? performance of the Duron over the Celeron.

Toms &Acirc;? BAPCO SysMark 2000 &Acirc;?

Duron 800 &Acirc;? &Acirc;? 140
Celeron 766 &Acirc;? &Acirc;? 126

OK &Acirc;? the Duron has a 11% advantage (with a 4.5% clock advantage) &Acirc;? &Acirc;? whoopee ding &Acirc;?&Acirc;? probably not even noticeable &Acirc;? &Acirc;?and Tom describes this &Acirc;? &Acirc;?

<< &Acirc;? &Acirc;?The Duron body slams the Celeron again and again in the Intel friendly Bapco SysMark2000 business application &Acirc;? &Acirc;?&Acirc;? >>

Huh? &Acirc;?&Acirc;?Body Slams&Acirc;?&Acirc;?&Acirc;?.Tom has been watching too much WWF. >>



&quot;bodyslams&quot; ... LOL!!!!!!!!!! Perhaps thats what he does after ripping a CPU or Blows one...
 


<< Back in the old days (like 1997), Intel tried to strongarm Tom. If you know the history, his bitterness for Intel can be explained. The infamous Intel strongarm tactics >>



That's right. Tom was the only one who pointed out that there was a problem with the PIII 1.13 until the kernel compilation test revealed it to everyone. Now did Intel really test the CPU? If yes, they knew of the problem and let it go because the race was on for the fastest clock speed. If no, then they deserve to be criticized for putting a substandard product out there in the market place. I know that Tom took a lot of heat before his finding were ultimately confirmed by Anand. Intel couldn't accept the criticism and started the professional snubbing, which was entirely petty. If you want to win over the critic, you buy his room and dinner, just like the movie studios do (or even better, they make up their reviews) LOL
 
snoop

Those are gaming benchmarks, I was only referring to applications. And yes the Duron pulls out a bigger advantage over the Celeron in gaming ? about 15% average (14.5% in your 4 examples)? than it does on applications. But that is likely because of the much faster bus that the Duron has over the Celeron. Bandwidth oriented applications should show better comparatively better on the Duron also. The P4 does well in gaming too largely because of its high bandwidth. Just as an aside, the Celeron beat the K6-2 by a much larger margin in gaming ?30-40%.

A few issues.

Sure you can tweak a Duron to run great with CAS2 memory as the faster bus will take more advantage of it than the Celeron will. But go out and buy an off the shelf Duron with a mediocre m/b and generic memory and see what happens. Or better yet, buy a Duron on an integrated motherboard and you will see the Celeron a lot closer. Finally, when you run those games at a higher resolution than 640 x 480 as most people will, the gap will also narrow quite a bit again.
 


<< Those are gaming benchmarks ?not applications. And yes the Duron pulls out a bigger advantage over the Celeron in gaming ? about 15% average (14.5% in your 4 examples)? >>


Hmm, but it only takes a 600 duron to match the performance of a 800 Celeron. Thats a 25% MHZ difference. So, in order for that 'IYO underated' Celeron to match a Duron it would need a 25% clockspeed advantage. So a 750 duron would match a 1000 Celeron.


<< But that is likely because of the much faster bus that the Duron has over the Celeron. Bandwidth oriented applications should show better comparatively better on the Duron also >>


This is true in some games, IE Q3, but if you go look at some UT benchmarks you will find that it is processing power limited, thats why a P4 1.8Ghz gets beat by a 1.4 Athlon.


<< Just as an aside, the Celeron beat the K6-2 by a much larger margin in gaming ?30-40%. >>


and an athlon beats a pentium MMX by 250%, who cares?


<< Sure you can tweak a Duron to run great with CAS2 memory as the faster bus will take more advantage of it than the Celeron will. But go out and buy an off the shelf Duron with a mediocre m/b and generic memory and see what happens. Or better yet, buy a Duron on an integrated motherboard and you will see the Celeron a lot closer. Finally, when you run those games at a higher resolution than 640 x 480 as most people will, the gap will also narrow quite a bit again. >>


You are comparing apples to oranges, earlier your point was &quot;I've seen more exaggerated performance claims for the Duron than I can shake a stick at and the Celeron is a lot closer on the majority of applications than a lot of people would have you believe.&quot;
Now your saying the Chipset and integrated video is the difference maker(I agree the integrated intel solutions are better than the Via ones). Face it, the celeron gets its ARSE kicked by the Duron, its not even close
 


<< Hmm, but it only takes a 600 duron to match the performance of a 800 Celeron. Thats a 25% MHZ difference. So, in order for that 'IYO underated' Celeron to match a Duron it would need a 25% clockspeed advantage. So a 750 duron would match a 1000 Celeron. ? ? ? ? ? Face it, the celeron gets its ARSE kicked by the Duron, its not even close >>



Who cares about how fast a Celeron would have to clock to match a Duron in gaming. At equal clock rates at 640 x 480 it?s only 15% behind. You call 15% getting whipped? That?s pretty funny. That?s why I said people exaggerated the Durons advantage. Bump the resolution to 1024 x 768 and you?re below 10%. In fact, for the 3 games where Anand provided benches for the higher resolution (1024x768) in that review, the Duron?s average advantage was a paltry 8.3% ?(Q3, UT, MDK2).

I?d call that quite close. Now the 30-40% advantage for the Celeron over the K6, that?s getting your butt kicked..
 
hmmm...biased huh? you mean like how PCworld is to Dell...geez...but i don't think so...i'm sure he would like to see the best and most cost-effective products offered to everyone else out there. this is the same guy that dropped rambus' stock to the ground...after exposing all the crap behind them...what he really wants is for intel to get its act together and stop running around marketing schemes.
 


<< Who cares about how fast a Celeron would have to clock to match a Duron in gaming. At equal clock rates at 640 x 480 it?s only 15% behind. You call 15% getting whipped? That?s pretty funny. That?s why I said people exaggerated the Durons advantage. Bump the resolution to 1024 x 768 and you?re below 10%. In fact, for the 3 games where Anand provided benches for the higher resolution (1024x768) in that review, the Duron?s average advantage was a paltry 8.3% ?(Q3, UT, MDK2).

I?d call that quite close. Now the 30-40% advantage for the Celeron over the K6, that?s getting your butt kicked.. >>


My problem with the Celeron vs. the Duron is which one costs more? The Celeron. and which one performs better? The Duron. Which one is the better buy? The Duron. Case Closed
 


<< Who cares about how fast a Celeron would have to clock to match a Duron in gaming. At equal clock rates at 640 x 480 it?s only 15% behind. You call 15% getting whipped? That?s pretty funny. That?s why I said people exaggerated the Durons advantage. Bump the resolution to 1024 x 768 and you?re below 10%. In fact, for the 3 games where Anand provided benches for the higher resolution (1024x768) in that review, the Duron?s average advantage was a paltry 8.3% ?(Q3, UT, MDK2). >>


WHAT IN THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. The Duron 600 matches a Celeron 800. In gaming as well as most business applications. I dont give a rat sh!t if the duron 800 only beats the celery by '15%', the Duron 600 handicapped by 25% less clockspeed, matches and bests the Celeron in almost all aplications.
Soooo, YOUR pos Celeron would need to be over 1000MHZ to make up that &quot;measly 15%&quot; performance delta with a 800mhz Duron.
As for the resolution increase, i hope you understand that as you increase resolution, the CPU performance gives way to Video card fillrate.
The 640x480 is the only spot where CPU performance is truely measured.


<< I?d call that quite close. Now the 30-40% advantage for the Celeron over the K6, that?s getting your butt kicked.. >>


Are you ~10 years old? That means nothing, you made a statement that the performance claims btw the Duron and Celeron were unfounded, NOW, you claim that the celeron whipped the k6-2. That makes sense, If it makes you feel better that the Celeron can beat a 4 year old proccesor then go ahead and feel that way 🙂.

 
hey Blastman, i'd call 15% slower and twice as expensive being whipped. hey, almost sounds like we are talking about the P4 vs. athlon, but with a smaller performance difference.....

--jacob
 


<< Are you ~10 years old? >>



Are you 5 years old?

The point IS, at resolutions that people actually play games the Durons advantage is less than 10% ?8.3%. And that?s on NVIDIA GeForce 2 GTS 32MB DDR. On a lesser gaming card It?s likely even closer ..maybe even only 5%. I call that close in my book.
 
you know, there are lots of people who play at 640x480, with crap textures and in 16 bit: they are called competitive players. some of them even play for money, and frame rates are very important to them. however, by your definition, blastman, they aren't people, since they don't play at resolutions that &quot;people&quot; actually play at. [edit: in light of Blastman's comment regarding this post, i feel it necessary to define what i am trying to do here. Blastman, i am calling you a dumbass with this post, not agreeing with you or trying to inject some humor into the thread. a newborn chimpanzee would have a fairly decent chance of getting the sarcasm that i used. however, you Blastman, did not. have a craptacular day.

--jacob
 


<<

<< Are you ~10 years old? >>



Are you 5 years old?

The point IS, at resolutions that people actually play games the Durons advantage is less than 10% ?8.3%. And that?s on NVIDIA GeForce 2 GTS 32MB DDR. On a lesser gaming card It?s likely even closer ..maybe even only 5%. I call that close in my book. >>



Thats the dumbest excuse Ive ever heard. Just cause you dont use the extra power in what you do doesnt make the fact that the duron is about 20-25% faster then the celeron not matter. Why don't we just start benchmarking all CPUs with Quake 3 at 1024x768 and just compare their video card performance instead of the CPU performance! And you call Tom biased, your statements show tons of bias, now if that isnt the pot calling the kettle black!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top