Toms hardware review of 64 3400 ?

[beyoku]

Has anybody noticed that the toms hardware review of the 3400 seems totally skewed. I mean i would expect it to be but not THAT bad. ALL other sites that i have looked at shows the 3400 preforming identical or better than the FX51. In toms site they show the chip below everything, around the p4 2800 at times. And they dont even put the FX51 in the benchmarks. Why ? Cause when you take a look at the P4EE vs FX51 test theese two chips are the forerunners in just about all the tests............and when the show that the FX51 is similar to the 3400 which are BOTH behind all the P4 chips listed it will bring up a red flags. I have stayed away from their site in the past but this is just pitiful. I dont think i will ever go back to toms hardware. Has anybody else noticed this?

 

[Overkast]

For some reason, just the name "Tom's hardware" sounds like a mom-and-pop shop to me... one of those places where you don't want to associate with because they have a small-world mentality. It's a turn-off to me.

AnandTech has a much more professional sound and feel to this place than Tom's does (just my opinion tho).

 

[NesuD]

Look at the ram timings toms used in their testing.
Intel 875
(Socket 748) Asus P4C800-E Deluxe Rev.: 1.02
Bios: 1011 BETA 006
4 x 256 MB CL 2.0-2-2-5 (200 MHz)
4 x 256 MB CL 2.0-2-2-5 (133 MHz)
VIA K8T800
(Socket 754) MSI 8KT Neo (MS-6702)
Bios: 1.0 Rev.: 1.0
2 x 512 MB CL2.0-4-4-8 (200 MHz

nothing like crippling the ram timings to get a poor result.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: beyoku
Has anybody noticed that the toms hardware review of the 3400 seems totally skewed. I mean i would expect it to be but not THAT bad. ALL other sites that i have looked at shows the 3400 preforming identical or better than the FX51. In toms site they show the chip below everything, around the p4 2800 at times. And they dont even put the FX51 in the benchmarks. Why ? Cause when you take a look at the P4EE vs FX51 test theese two chips are the forerunners in just about all the tests............and when the show that the FX51 is similar to the 3400 which are BOTH behind all the P4 chips listed it will bring up a red flags. I have stayed away from their site in the past but this is just pitiful. I dont think i will ever go back to toms hardware. Has anybody else noticed this?

Go read techreport they don't show the 3400+ beating the A64 3400+...Are they biased too??? get over it...

Also notice how in the tech report review if you get based the gaming the 3400+ loses to p4 3.2ghz non ee(even more against the p4ee) in the majority of non gaming apps...

 

[Richdog]

This Tom hating thing is 25% fact and 75% psychological and irrational.:beer:

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Richdog
This Tom hating thing is 25% fact and 75% psychological and irrational.:beer:

One could argue that truely hating anything is 100% irrational... then again... so are some of Tom's conclusions.

 

[lobbyone]

Originally posted by: Richdog
This Tom hating thing is 25% fact and 75% psychological and irrational.:beer:

:beer:

 

[ntrights]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: beyoku
Has anybody noticed that the toms hardware review of the 3400 seems totally skewed. I mean i would expect it to be but not THAT bad. ALL other sites that i have looked at shows the 3400 preforming identical or better than the FX51. In toms site they show the chip below everything, around the p4 2800 at times. And they dont even put the FX51 in the benchmarks. Why ? Cause when you take a look at the P4EE vs FX51 test theese two chips are the forerunners in just about all the tests............and when the show that the FX51 is similar to the 3400 which are BOTH behind all the P4 chips listed it will bring up a red flags. I have stayed away from their site in the past but this is just pitiful. I dont think i will ever go back to toms hardware. Has anybody else noticed this?

Go read techreport they don't show the 3400+ beating the A64 3400+...Are they biased too??? get over it...

Also notice how in the tech report review if you get based the gaming the 3400+ loses to p4 3.2ghz non ee(even more against the p4ee) in the majority of non gaming apps...

I wonder what kind of % performance gains we can expect from Prescott's added cache and improved HT? and also just noticed that they will start at 2.8g which one will OC best, batch numbers to look for???? The 2.8 or 3.0? Questions questions Im looking at the 2.8 with HT but will wait a lil bit for some reviews..

 

[Richdog]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Richdog
This Tom hating thing is 25% fact and 75% psychological and irrational.:beer:

One could argue that truely hating anything is 100% irrational... then again... so are some of Tom's conclusions.

You could indeed Dr. Spock... you could indeed.:beer:

 

[JBT]

Tmos si teh suoxrs

 

[Duvie]

The above rant about the 3400+ not equaling or beating the fx51 is absurd.....What do you expect??? It runs at the same speed as the fx51 (2.2ghz) i believe, with same cache buit only has the single channel memory controller just like all the athlon64 non fx models do....I expected it to be close in many cpu intensive apps which it was and to loose out in memory bandwidth intensive apps...Again which it does....

I think you are bashing Toms hardware for reality....


I agree I think Tomshardware conclusions seem a bit odd...Usually his numbers are not too weird it is just the conclusions he draws from them....And after I read that sorry to say pathetic review by anandtech on the athlon64 3000+ some ppl need to give props for toms and techreport for running the most comprehensive reviews with a multitude of test...

I like to look at anandtech's reviews (3000+) which by the way I think sucks....7 games apps and 1 multimedia and 1 rendering app, then the rest full of synthetic babble....At least tomshardware and PCtechreport cater to a large user base of pc computers and that is non gamers.....


I think the 3400+ is just one more reason to see why the dual channel memory controller is so important...As it stands for me i nthe important things I run the athlon 3400+ is slower then a stock p4 3.2ghz (which I am above and only paid 180 for my chip)...Granted this is in non 64bit apps, but I don't run a 64bit OS and currently majority of the world does not either....

 

[Richdog]

Originally posted by: Duvie
The above rant about the 3400+ not equaling or beating the fx51 is absurd.....What do you expect??? It runs at the same speed as the fx51 (2.2ghz) i believe, with same cache buit only has the single channel memory controller just like all the athlon64 non fx models do....I expected it to be close in many cpu intensive apps which it was and to loose out in memory bandwidth intensive apps...Again which it does....

I think you are bashing Toms hardware for reality....


I agree I think Tomshardware conclusions seem a bit odd...Usually his numbers are not too weird it is just the conclusions he draws from them....And after I read that sorry to say pathetic review by anandtech on the athlon64 3000+ some ppl need to give props for toms and techreport for running the most comprehensive reviews with a multitude of test...

I like to look at anandtech's reviews (3000+) which by the way I think sucks....7 games apps and 1 multimedia and 1 rendering app, then the rest full of synthetic babble....At least tomshardware and PCtechreport cater to a large user base of pc computers and that is non gamers.....


I think the 3400+ is just one more reason to see why the dual channel memory controller is so important...As it stands for me i nthe important things I run the athlon 3400+ is slower then a stock p4 3.2ghz (which I am above and only paid 180 for my chip)...Granted this is in non 64bit apps, but I don't run a 64bit OS and currently majority of the world does not either....

Well said Duvo.:beer:

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Go read techreport they don't show the 3400+ beating the A64 FX51...Are they biased too??? get over it...

Also notice how in the tech report review if you get based the gaming the 3400+ loses to p4 3.2ghz non ee(even more against the p4ee) in the majority of non gaming apps...

Actually, based on their tests I'd say their conclusion was less understandable than Tom's

The Athlon 64 3400+ pummels the Pentium 4 3.2GHz in most of our gaming benchmarks, although the P4 stills does relatively well in our media encoding, speech recognition, and SSE2-laden 3D rendering tests. Athlon 64 processors are strong across the board, though, with few real performance weaknesses.

WTF?

 

[Richdog]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Go read techreport they don't show the 3400+ beating the A64 FX51...Are they biased too??? get over it...

Also notice how in the tech report review if you get based the gaming the 3400+ loses to p4 3.2ghz non ee(even more against the p4ee) in the majority of non gaming apps...

Actually, based on their tests I'd say their conclusion was less understandable than Tom's

The Athlon 64 3400+ pummels the Pentium 4 3.2GHz in most of our gaming benchmarks, although the P4 stills does relatively well in our media encoding, speech recognition, and SSE2-laden 3D rendering tests. Athlon 64 processors are strong across the board, though, with few real performance weaknesses.

WTF?

It takes "general" and "vagueness" to a new level. A cop-out if you ask me, not wanting to say one is better than the other in case someone finds fault with it later.:beer:

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Go read techreport they don't show the 3400+ beating the A64 FX51...Are they biased too??? get over it...

Also notice how in the tech report review if you get based the gaming the 3400+ loses to p4 3.2ghz non ee(even more against the p4ee) in the majority of non gaming apps...

Actually, based on their tests I'd say their conclusion was less understandable than Tom's

The Athlon 64 3400+ pummels the Pentium 4 3.2GHz in most of our gaming benchmarks, although the P4 stills does relatively well in our media encoding, speech recognition, and SSE2-laden 3D rendering tests. Athlon 64 processors are strong across the board, though, with few real performance weaknesses.

WTF?

Actually you bring up a good point...

I rarely read the bibble babble these guys write...i let the numbers and the charts speak for themselves, as well as the test setups they run.....I remember reading that one and saying did the author of this conclusion run the rest of the review???

Oh well the numbers showed the real story...