Tomshardware article on state of cpu wars!!!

[Duvie]

Toms

What do you think??? Does he strike some truth in there???

 

[DAPUNISHER]

The Tier One OEM is lost to AMD on the desktop, and getting them isn't worth taking away marketing resources from Opteron. That's where AMD should put all its resources, and work with the Taiwanese chipset and mobo vendors to create greater channel penetration. Intel can hardly compete there, particularly if the struggling Taiwanese companies-- even if it is just the Tier Two guys--see a chance at making some extra profits bundling CPUs. There's the volume argument AMD has been looking for. There's all the marketing and manpower resources they need.

That echos what I've been saying for months, the desktop market isn't the key to their prosperity in the near future. I am however always troubled to read articles there about AMD with the Intel sponsored banner at the top of the pages always lending to the accussations of Tom whoring for whomever pads his wallet....

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
I am however always troubled to read articles there about AMD with the Intel sponsored banner at the top of the pages always lending to the accussations of Tom whoring for whomever pads his wallet....

There's an AMD ad right at the top of AnandTech.com's CPU page... Should I be weary when reading cpu reviews on AT?

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

The Tier One OEM is lost to AMD on the desktop, and getting them isn't worth taking away marketing resources from Opteron. That's where AMD should put all its resources, and work with the Taiwanese chipset and mobo vendors to create greater channel penetration. Intel can hardly compete there, particularly if the struggling Taiwanese companies-- even if it is just the Tier Two guys--see a chance at making some extra profits bundling CPUs. There's the volume argument AMD has been looking for. There's all the marketing and manpower resources they need.

That echos what I've been saying for months, the desktop market isn't the key to their prosperity in the near future. I am however always troubled to read articles there about AMD with the Intel sponsored banner at the top of the pages always lending to the accussations of Tom whoring for whomever pads his wallet....

You've got a valid point. THG has admittedly been intel biased over the years, and it's always been painfully obvious. I've generally strayed away from THG simply because of what I've come to see as dishearteningly jaded reviews in most cases (or articles).

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
I am however always troubled to read articles there about AMD with the Intel sponsored banner at the top of the pages always lending to the accussations of Tom whoring for whomever pads his wallet....

There's an AMD ad right at the top of AnandTech.com's CPU page... Should I be weary when reading cpu reviews on AT?

:Q Touche' Monsieur. EDIT: I think Wingz effective observation on that point makes you and I look somewhat hypocritical Ronin

 

[DAPUNISHER]

ExtremeTech's conclusions seem more balanced to me link

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
I am however always troubled to read articles there about AMD with the Intel sponsored banner at the top of the pages always lending to the accussations of Tom whoring for whomever pads his wallet....

There's an AMD ad right at the top of AnandTech.com's CPU page... Should I be weary when reading cpu reviews on AT?

Anand's credibility has not come into question time and time again. Tom, on the other hand..

 

[pspada]

Hom's Tardware, need I say more?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
I am however always troubled to read articles there about AMD with the Intel sponsored banner at the top of the pages always lending to the accussations of Tom whoring for whomever pads his wallet....

There's an AMD ad right at the top of AnandTech.com's CPU page... Should I be weary when reading cpu reviews on AT?

Anand's credibility has not come into question time and time again. Tom, on the other hand..

Yeah, but Wingz is right about my trying to use the advertising angle as an indictment, it just doesn't hold up. However, It would seem given the responses on various forums about the article in question, and taking the numerous other reviews that have appeared into account, that it is far more incriminating evidence than the advertising could ever be of the site's bias.

 

I'm pretty sure that if the review results on Tom's had shown that AMD was ahead, we wouldn't hear a peep from you guys. Right? Because you would be satisfied. Fat and happy. Quick question. Did Tom's do any similar to Anand's? It would be really cool for someone to create a web page with all of the reviewers results next to each other. You know, like Anand's CPUbench 2003 next to Tom's CPUbench 2003 next to HardOCP's etc.etc. Just include the ones that all reviewers conducted mutually. IMO

Do you guys think that it would be illegal to do so? If you don't know, who can I ask?

GM

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: gorillaman
I'm pretty sure that if the review results on Tom's had shown that AMD was ahead, we wouldn't hear a peep from you guys. Right?
GM

No. The methodolgy used would still be questionable, BDSM made some interesting observations including the following in his thread on the subject

Wow.. lots of posts while I was at work... Anyway.. I've had a little more time to study the benchmarks closer.

Take unreal tournament for instance.. At aces it's all amd at the top. At thg the 3.2 ghz EE beats the A 64 3200+ while at aces even the 3.4 ghz EE can't do this.. Ofcourse the benchmarks aren't entirely identical.. However it is the same game.. So what makes thg choose somethign that favors intel.. (btw xbit labs tests puts the fx 51 @ 22 % faster than the 3.2 ee while in toms test it's onl about 2.1% faster...)

Personally I don't know but it seems to mr that this sort of conduct is quite common at thg... take The X2 game for instance.. On aces the 2.2 ghz fx comes out on top of the the 3.2 ghz ee while at thg it is beaten by the same.
The only difference between these set ups is that thg has shadows disabled... I wonder what made them disable the shadows.. Do ppl usually play games with shadows turned off these days?
I don't play any games myself at all except online chess so I wouldn't know.. But shadows ought to be ncie to have in a game.

Anyway.. I'm no amd fan boy.. I just buy what I like best (and that has historically mostly been intel stuff).

This thread was about thg.. not intel vs amd and amd ppl versus intel ppl.. I just think that there are in my opinion many things that indicate that thg chooses his benchmarks to make intel look good and jduging by ppls reactions to his review I am not alone.

If I wasn't so tired I would find more "proof". but now is bed time for me.

I haven't scrutinzed it as he has so I'll except his assessment until someone can effectively counter his points of contention.

 

[Soulkeeper]

to tell you the truth even though he said the P4 EE won like 32 and the athlon 64 fx won like 15
i think the two chips are pretty closely matched
i'm sure the P4 EE surprised AMD
but I like the fact that the athlon 64 stomps down in some games
and the integrated memory controller and hypertransport are great too

they are close enough benchmarks to where you could change a few bios settings or oc a tad bit and change the outcome so I ain't worried

 

[Duvie]

And, Then there is the fact he shows the same disappoiting performance in about all multimedia apps just like anandtech and others....The fact is I am not a gamer!!! For me the AMD is no great break through and actually a step back. My system at 3.2 to 3.33ghz with darn near 800fsb and DCDDR should be faster then the 3200+ A64 now. However I don't see the Intel offering that great based on price, possible heat, initial ocing amounts, etc. I need to wait for the prescott with its added instructions, advanced HT and what not....

Actually this thread was more about the initial article on the state of amd and intel processors before the benches were announced. Comment on his theories of 64 bit, market penetration, etc....

 

[DAPUNISHER]

And, Then there is the fact he shows the same disappoiting performance in about all multimedia apps just like anandtech and others

I agree the benchies that still rely heavily on raw horsepower showed it's Achille's heel, but it did open a can of whupa$$ in DIVX

 

[Dewey]

You've got a valid point. THG has admittedly been intel biased over the years, and it's always been painfully obvious. I've generally strayed away from THG simply because of what I've come to see as dishearteningly jaded reviews in most cases (or articles).

I guess I've been away from THG a while. I left because it was too biased towards AMD. I'm an AMD fan, but the reviews were rediculous. A new AMD processor would win some benchies and lose some others and Tom's would declare AMD victory with dramatic claims of AMD killing Intel, etc. That's how I ended up here. I haven't been over to Tom's in several years.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

And, Then there is the fact he shows the same disappoiting performance in about all multimedia apps just like anandtech and others

I agree the benchies that still rely heavily on raw horsepower showed it's Achille's heel, but it did open a can of whupa$$ in DIVX

Do you mean it closed the gap cause I still saw it lose in Divx 5.05 and divx 5.1...I didn't see the p4 lose any divx test....

 

[DAPUNISHER]

It won the "DVD2AVI" program along with the v 5.0.5 DivX CODEC benchie at [ H ] link and Hardwarereview.com "We never expected to see this. It seems that for everyday Divx use the Athlon64 FX 51 is the best choice." link

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
It won the "DVD2AVI" program along with the v 5.0.5 DivX CODEC benchie at [ H ] link and Hardwarereview.com "We never expected to see this. It seems that for everyday Divx use the Athlon64 FX 51 is the best choice." link

Hmm that is quite contrary to all the other sites (though most others used xmpeg or gknot (which I use)....

Couldn't score a p4 3.2ghz or a p4ee 3.2ghz huh (in 2nd link)???? Makes the test a bit skewed not to even test intel's current best....

Also how come the one link (2nd one) you give me doesn't show it win at all except some sort of realistic settings in virtualdub???

Then the first link is actually hardocp.com and yes I see it wins.....
I don't use dvd2avi but Thugs does!!! Show him that!!!

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
It won the "DVD2AVI" program along with the v 5.0.5 DivX CODEC benchie at [ H ] link and Hardwarereview.com "We never expected to see this. It seems that for everyday Divx use the Athlon64 FX 51 is the best choice." link

Hmm that is quite contrary to all the other sites (though most others used xmpeg or gknot (which I use)....

Couldn't score a p4 3.2ghz or a p4ee 3.2ghz huh (in 2nd link)???? Makes the test a bit skewed not to even test intel's current best....

Also how come the one link (2nd one) you give me doesn't show it win at all except some sort of realistic settings in virtualdub???

Then the first link is actually hardocp.com and yes I see it wins.....
I don't use dvd2avi but Thugs does!!! Show him that!!!

You kill me sometimes Duvie, you back up Tom because it says what you want then stomp on the ones that don't, pot meet kettle

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
It won the "DVD2AVI" program along with the v 5.0.5 DivX CODEC benchie at [ H ] link and Hardwarereview.com "We never expected to see this. It seems that for everyday Divx use the Athlon64 FX 51 is the best choice." link

Hmm that is quite contrary to all the other sites (though most others used xmpeg or gknot (which I use)....

Couldn't score a p4 3.2ghz or a p4ee 3.2ghz huh (in 2nd link)???? Makes the test a bit skewed not to even test intel's current best....

Also how come the one link (2nd one) you give me doesn't show it win at all except some sort of realistic settings in virtualdub???

Then the first link is actually hardocp.com and yes I see it wins.....
I don't use dvd2avi but Thugs does!!! Show him that!!!

You kill me sometimes Duvie, you back up Tom because it says what you want then stomp on the ones that don't, pot meet kettle

did you actually read the other reviews??? Extremetech, Anandtech, tom, etc...I didn't pick just one!!! Xvid, Xmpeg, gknot, etc....mpeg2 encoding, mpeg4 encoding, mp9, etc....Where am I just siding with tom???

Answer that!!!

You seem funnier cause you found the 1 that you wanted to read...If you use DVD2avi then by all means it is better for you....

 

[Duvie]

Where did I stomp on Hardocp's review???

I didn't, reread!!!

The 2nd link they did not have a p4 3.2ghz let alone the p4ee so the virtual test (1 out of 4 they won) may not have been the best. Lets remember the FX model is a paperlaunch just like the p4ee since you can't get either processor right now....

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Where did I stomp on Hardocp's review???

I didn't, reread!!!

The 2nd link they did not have a p4 3.2ghz let alone the p4ee so the virtual test (1 out of 4 they won) may not have been the best. Lets remember the FX model is a paperlaunch just like the p4ee since you can't get either processor right now....

What are you talking about? You can buy the FX now, not a paper launch. Only the P4ee is unavailable. Link.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Duvie
Where did I stomp on Hardocp's review???

I didn't, reread!!!

The 2nd link they did not have a p4 3.2ghz let alone the p4ee so the virtual test (1 out of 4 they won) may not have been the best. Lets remember the FX model is a paperlaunch just like the p4ee since you can't get either processor right now....

What are you talking about? You can buy the FX now, not a paper launch. Only the P4ee is unavailable. Link.

Yes you are right and someone else pinted me to that in a thread....p4ee is a paperlaunch and a parade rainmaker....Did it work?? IMHO yes....

 

[Budman]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Duvie
Where did I stomp on Hardocp's review???

I didn't, reread!!!

The 2nd link they did not have a p4 3.2ghz let alone the p4ee so the virtual test (1 out of 4 they won) may not have been the best. Lets remember the FX model is a paperlaunch just like the p4ee since you can't get either processor right now....

What are you talking about? You can buy the FX now, not a paper launch. Only the P4ee is unavailable. Link.

Yes you are right and someone else pinted me to that in a thread....p4ee is a paperlaunch and a parade rainmaker....Did it work?? IMHO yes....

The P4 EE didnt rain on Athlon 64's parade,I think the pricetag on the A64 killed it . way too expensive for my tastes.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I have no intention of debating with you Duvie, I've known you from the boards a good while now and I respect your opinion and often learn something from your posts. I do think you tend ,like the rest of us, to be too passionate and over-rationalize at times You stated

Do you mean it closed the gap cause I still saw it lose in Divx 5.05 and divx 5.1...I didn't see the p4 lose any divx test

I linked 2 just as you linked to Tom's, and you proceeded to question their merit/methodology *rightly so* However either I missed where you questioned Tom's or you did not, which was it? Once again, you stated you didn't see any and I provided 2 links that painted the AMD in a better light just as Tom's did the P4. Now, I'll throw out 2 reviews as FUD for your one

EDIT: The title of this thread is very accurate "CPU Wars" is about right eh?