Tom's biased and payed benchmarks

[Aenslead]

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031223/index.html

Everything they state is off the place. Tom's hardware is the only place I have seen P4EE winning so much benchmarks against Athlon FX-51.

Besides, it states that upgradability for Socket 478 is much better than any other AMD offer. If I can remember correctly... Mr. Prescott will need ehm... 775 pins? I guess?

Tsk tsk. Keeps pushing readers away. Anandtech is where to stay.

What do you people think?

- Luis

 

[nick1985]

its SO HARD to make a link isnt it....


anyway, i agree that AT is better than toms, but this could brew a flame war.

 

[high]

Toms really does show a biased side in his benches. AT is definitely the place to stay.

 

[joe2004]

Everybody knows that, it is a shame that site is so many times referenced while they keep on doing that.

 

[lifeguard1999]

Then again, some people compare a product across several different review sites like AT, THG, GamePC, HardOCP, .........

 

[pspada]

Hom's Tardware. 'Nuff said.

 

[Corporate Thug]

toms hardware is biased, nothing new here.

 

[Acanthus]

AT has had biased reviews as well.

 

[jdogg707]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
AT has had biased reviews as well.

Which reviews would you say are biased? I have not found any as Biased as Tom's. I mean, Intel could have it's butt kicked in ever benchmark on the planet and Tom's would still show it winning at something. I don't have anything against Intel, but I can't stand reading Biased crap when I am doing research on something; misleading information is what causes people to buy an over priced product, when possibly something cheaper could do the same thing.

 

[Richdog]

How many times is this Toms vs Anandtech topic going to rear it's tired old head? It's almost as bad as the Nvidia cheating debate, gnnghhhhh...:beer:

 

[mechBgon]

~ hmm, now where'd I leave that 11-foot pole...

 

[ArborBarber]

THG use to be a really decent site, everyone has to pay the bills though. I think it's in everyones' best interest to view as much info about any given piece of hardware or software that one is interested in. THG isn't the ONLY place awarding benchmarks to the P4EE. In a cpu showdown between an AMD Athlon 64 FX-51,Intel P4EE, and the Apple Dual G5, MaxiumPC crowned the P4EE the king cpu at the moment. However MaxiumPC awarded the FX-51 Gear of The Year...


------------------------------------------------------------------------FX-51---------P4EE--------G5-----
Mathematica..................................................................... 572sec*......639sec.......997sec
SETI@Home...................................................................... 106min*......111min......173min
UT2003............................................................................. 332fps.........334fps*......80fps
Jedi Outcast...................................................................... 130fps.........133fps*........72fps
Quake III.......................................................................... 445fps.........501fps*......404fps
Indesign 2.0 export to PDF............................................... 47sec..........46sec*..........61sec
Photoshop 7.0.1 All Filters................................................. 269sec.........266sec*.....330sec
Photoshop 7.0.1 MacAddict Filters..................................... 38sec......... 41sec........ 37sec*
Bibble/MacBibble................................................................ 451sec.........354sec......240sec*
QuickTime 6.3 Export to MOV............................................. 803sec.........744sec......706sec*
Compressor "Fast" vs. Procoder "High-Speed".................. 225sec*.......225sec*....263sec
Compressor "High-Quality" vs. Procoder 1.5 "Mastering"...1105sec.......1190sec....724sec*

MaxiumPC Magazine Dec 2003 pg.52, article "Three's a Crowd" by Gordon Mah Ung

*denotes winner

IMHO, there's alot of things going on here with these two cpus, Intel has alot of help from software vendors, and in those benchmarks by MaxiumPC it seems that the P4EE JUST eeked by...and when you throw in the fact that the FX-51 is 64 bit ready...seems like a no brainer...at this point software is going to be key to the success of the FX-51. I think it's awesome that AMD is pushing 64 bit computing on the desktop front, however don't count Intel out as I think they might just have a rabbit up their sleeve...As The CPU Turns....

 

[RussianSensation]

It is fairly obvious that when you read 1 source or few sources you can often get a biased opinion. Now i am not saying that tom's hardware is less or more biased than any other dedicated website is to another topic. Afterall, the only way to have a fair understanding of the information provided to you is to read more than 1 credible source. That is why you can read tom's and anandtech and many other websites. Its like reading a book about some topic, one author will have his own point of view, and thats not necessarily bias, but his opinion.

From what i am reading in conclusion, there doesnt seem to be any specific bias....

He clearly states:

Novices should certainly consider the AthlonXP 2600+ or 2800+, since a serviceable platform with 512 MB of memory is inexpensive and will do nicely for the next 18-24 months.

This makes sense, since if a novice would want to spend less money on computers and get the best bang for the buck and probably wouldnt want to tweak and have the hassle of overclocking 2.4-2.8 p4 or barton 2500+

The Pentium 4 has slightly better performance reserves and more than 3.2 GHz can probably be squeezed from Socket 478, meaning that the extra investment in the processor will pay off over the long term.

This statement is also true. In comparison to Socket 462 which will forever stop at 3200+ Athlon, P4 will have 3.4 and probably up to 3.8p4 released on 478. In that sense if you get a cheaper 2.4-2.6 processor you'll have a higher upgrade path and just as much performance as 2600-2800+ Athlon. That is the implication here.

The AMD Athlon64 FX and Intel's Pentium 4 Extreme Edition are still status symbols for the computing jet set. After all, you can pick up a complete and high-performance system for between $750 and $1,000, which as our benchmarks show, also offer a superior price/performance ratio.

Nowhere in this statement is bias shown towards P4 EE.

Also it is difficult to say if P4 EE is better or not and how much it differnet from Athlon FX because so few credible websites have done proper reviews on it. Consider this, having a set of benchmarks, one can make any review biased. Anandtech tests a lot of videogames, and that is why you'll see majority of their benchmarks being dominated by them. From one point of view that is good because a lot of computer users are gamers and that is where FX exceeds, and clearly it always wins on that website. You could also have a website testing other things like encoding, rendering, and so on...to make Intel processors be more favourable.

So in the end, it's what applications you most commonly use at home that determines what processor is the best for you. And if one site has different set of benchmarks than another to make the product look better in those applications it could be bias, or maybe not, because for someone a review based simply on gaming performance is also biased. I am not sure if the Athlon FX would outperform p4 ee in general usage applications due to it lacking HT so it would probably lack in multitasking in comparison. Regardless if someone spends 750 or 1000 US on a processor alone i dont think they care if its slower by 5% because they'll buy another one in 6 months (these people usually dont lack funds) So who cares...........................................

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: high
Toms really does show a biased side in his benches. AT is definitely the place to stay.

Prove it, citing both tom's and other's benches. Until one of you worthless fanbois does this, stop taking up forum space with your mindless tripe.

 

[Jeff7181]

The Pentium 4 has slightly better performance reserves and more than 3.2 GHz can probably be squeezed from Socket 478, meaning that the extra investment in the processor will pay off over the long term.

That's the dumbest thing I've seen so far.

 

[XMan]

The AMD Athlon64 FX and Intel's Pentium 4 Extreme Edition are still status symbols for the computing jet set. After all, you can pick up a complete and high-performance system for between $750 and $1,000, which as our benchmarks show, also offer a superior price/performance ratio.

Nowhere in this statement is bias shown towards P4 EE.

Maybe not bias, but certainly misinformation. I can build an FX-51 system for around a grand. A grand would just barely pay for a P4 EE.

 

[Amused]

I guess no one remembers that Tom was the first one to find the fatal flaw in Intel's first 1GHz CPU?

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

The Pentium 4 has slightly better performance reserves and more than 3.2 GHz can probably be squeezed from Socket 478, meaning that the extra investment in the processor will pay off over the long term.

That's the dumbest thing I've seen so far.

This statement was made in comparison to Socket A which will forever stop at 3200+ hence "slightly better performance reserves" for Socket 478 is a valid statement, and more than 3.2ghz can "probably" be squeezed. Notice how he never stated it as a fact but implied that at least 3.4 will come out for 478, and possibly 3.6 and 3.8.

......... And Tom never said that it's better to get p4 EE for 1000 than athlon fx 51 for 750 and he just says they are very expensive and top of the line processors. Personally I myself wouldnt go for either and I would just get Athlon 64 3000+ but you dont see me arguying the price/perfomance ratio when that isn't even the topic.

I think you guys should read things more carefully and not jump to conclusions too fast. The fact that his website offers another point of view and looks extensively over so many hardware devices and peripherals makes it a resourseful place to find useful information. If you guys dont like Tom's Hardware just stop reading it, no one is forcing you.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Aenslead
Tom's biased and payed benchmarks

What does "payed" mean?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

The Pentium 4 has slightly better performance reserves and more than 3.2 GHz can probably be squeezed from Socket 478, meaning that the extra investment in the processor will pay off over the long term.

That's the dumbest thing I've seen so far.

This statement was made in comparison to Socket A which will forever stop at 3200+ hence "slightly better performance reserves" for Socket 478 is a valid statement, and more than 3.2ghz can "probably" be squeezed. Notice how he never stated it as a fact but implied that at least 3.4 will come out for 478, and possibly 3.6 and 3.8.

......... And Tom never said that it's better to get p4 EE for 1000 than athlon fx 51 for 750 and he just says they are very expensive and top of the line processors. Personally I myself wouldnt go for either and I would just get Athlon 64 3000+ but you dont see me arguying the price/perfomance ratio when that isn't even the topic.

I think you guys should read things more carefully and not jump to conclusions too fast. The fact that his website offers another point of view and looks extensively over so many hardware devices and peripherals makes it a resourseful place to find useful information. If you guys dont like Tom's Hardware just stop reading it, no one is forcing you.

Don't jump to conclusions and assume I'm "arguying the price/performance ratio." I said that's a dumb statement, nothing else.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Aenslead
Tom's biased and payed benchmarks

What does "payed" mean?

To let out (a line or cable) by slackening?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

The Pentium 4 has slightly better performance reserves and more than 3.2 GHz can probably be squeezed from Socket 478, meaning that the extra investment in the processor will pay off over the long term.

That's the dumbest thing I've seen so far.

why? the 3.4EE is S478 and will work on all current mobos that support 800fsb. Granted it will cost an arm and a leg, but it will be faster than the 3.2EE, and will probably coincide with the FX53 release.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

The Pentium 4 has slightly better performance reserves and more than 3.2 GHz can probably be squeezed from Socket 478, meaning that the extra investment in the processor will pay off over the long term.

That's the dumbest thing I've seen so far.

why? the 3.4EE is S478 and will work on all current mobos that support 800fsb. Granted it will cost an arm and a leg, but it will be faster than the 3.2EE, and will probably coincide with the FX53 release.

Slightly better performance reserves? What the hell does that mean?

Of course more than 3.2 Ghz can be squeezed from socket 478, the socket itself isn't limiting anything, it's the architecture of the CPU... mainly, they can't physically run any faster without using Strained Silicon and Silicon on Insulator... neither of which have anything at all to do with the socket design.

How does investing extra in a processor pay off over the long term when in the long term socket 478 will be phased out? Why would investing in a processor have anything to do with the longevity of socket 478??? Wouldn't investing in a motherboard do that more so than a processor?

 

[orion7144]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

The Pentium 4 has slightly better performance reserves and more than 3.2 GHz can probably be squeezed from Socket 478, meaning that the extra investment in the processor will pay off over the long term.

That's the dumbest thing I've seen so far.

why? the 3.4EE is S478 and will work on all current mobos that support 800fsb. Granted it will cost an arm and a leg, but it will be faster than the 3.2EE, and will probably coincide with the FX53 release.

Slightly better performance reserves? What the hell does that mean?

Of course more than 3.2 Ghz can be squeezed from socket 478, the socket itself isn't limiting anything, it's the architecture of the CPU... mainly, they can't physically run any faster without using Strained Silicon and Silicon on Insulator... neither of which have anything at all to do with the socket design.

How does investing extra in a processor pay off over the long term when in the long term socket 478 will be phased out? Why would investing in a processor have anything to do with the longevity of socket 478??? Wouldn't investing in a motherboard do that more so than a processor?

Because you are one of the "FanBoys" and either don't want to understand or can't understand. Buy a 2.4C now and you can upgrade later to a faster 3.2 or above and not have to get a new MB.

I think his reviews are biased as well. You never see a 2.4 running at 275FSB or above (where 2 of mine are at), in any of his reviews. There are alot of people running above 250fsb so if he would include those scores in there all the "FanBoys" would see how fast they really are. Puts the FX in it's place (until we get 64bit apps) and still less than $200 for a MB and CPU.