Theo Valich Credible?

[sm625]

In the bulldozer delay article ( http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2011/5/30/amd-delays-bulldozer-citing-performance-issues.aspx )he said

clock-by-clock, Bulldozer will walk all over Sandy Bridge in integer and get hammered in Floating Point tests.

Does he have a history of making stuff like this up out of the blue? Is he bound by a NDA? Isnt integer performance 70% of typical desktop/gaming load? Doesn't this mean that BD is faster in single threaded apps? Shouldnt BD be faster until each module is loaded with more than one thread?

 

[Inspire]

Show me the benchies!

Otherwise, I don't care.

 

[jimbo75]

Worst thread title ever, please change it. Yeah I know you have the ? but still I almost had a fit seeing those 3 words so close together.

 

[sm625]

so I guess you think he is not credible? Is there a way to insert a poll?

 

[Accord99]

Does he have a history of making stuff like this up out of the blue?

Yes:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1005560/amd-socket-am2-has-a-secret-weapon

 

[OCGuy]

I would say the fact that he tries to put a positive spin on a performance delay story shows he is losing it.

 

[jimbo75]

I would say the fact that he tries to put a positive spin on a performance delay story shows he is losing it.

I would say that the fact you think Theo's spin was "positive" show's that you are losing it.

 

[Phynaz]

I almost had a fit seeing those 3 words so close together.

You and me both.

 

[Elixer]

I guess it depends on what aspect he is talking about. For the most part, I would say, take what that site says with a grain of salt.

Heck, take all sites with a grain of salt.

 

[jvroig]

I think it goes hand-in-hand with "rumor sites" that credibility is rather suspect. Sometimes it will be correct, sometimes it won't be (or maybe, most times), but whatever the result is in terms of "truth", it doesn't take away from the fact that each post/article is meant to generate buzz/profit for the rumorsite itself, shady means included.

I would have to say that Theo, Fuad, and Charlie (three Inq alumni as I recall) are all suspect in credibility.

 

[Elixer]

I think it goes hand-in-hand with "rumor sites" that credibility is rather suspect. Sometimes it will be correct, sometimes it won't be (or maybe, most times), but whatever the result is in terms of "truth", it doesn't take away from the fact that each post/article is meant to generate buzz/profit for the rumorsite itself, shady means included.

I would have to say that Theo, Fuad, and Charlie (three Inq alumni as I recall) are all suspect in credibility.

Doesn't that also apply to sites that get their hardware "free" for "reviews" ? They don't want to piss off the golden goose, so they let things slide by in their "reviews".

 

[jvroig]

In my opinion, the difference between the rumor sites and the tech sites are data and methodology.

Charlie/Fuad/Theo hardly even pretend to be scientific. They just have "sources". (So do I, and my sources tell me that Charlie/Fuad/Theo "need to consolidate their feces" before I should believe them)

AnandTech, Tom's, TPU, etc., at least present their data and methodology. How did they get to the conclusion that i7 smokes the Phenom II? There you go, methodology is there. You can either agree or disagree, but at least there is transparency - they don't just "inform" you of a conclusion without showing data gathered through a chosen methodology. You are in a better position to judge the whole thing, instead of relying on assumed credibility.

 

[busydude]

Congrats on becoming a mod. :thumbsup:

 

[podspi]

Doesn't that also apply to sites that get their hardware "free" for "reviews" ? They don't want to piss off the golden goose, so they let things slide by in their "reviews".

I feel like this often applies to some of the smaller hardware sites, but larger ones seem to be able to tell the truth and still get review items. Plus, after a while you can afford your own. Companies know they can't get away with that sort of nonsense in the internet age.

 

[Phynaz]

I feel like this often applies to some of the smaller hardware sites, but larger ones seem to be able to tell the truth and still get review items. Plus, after a while you can afford your own. Companies know they can't get away with that sort of nonsense in the internet age.

You would be very surprised how often it happens - in online or print media.

The threat of having advertising dollars taken away - let alone future access - has a chilling effect on a lot of reviews. The advertising dollars from large companies is what keeps a lot of sites afloat.

Ars had an article maybe about a year ago on how they were pressured to give positive reviews (or at least to not give negative reviews).