What the... who to beleive?! P4EE vs AFX51

[Aenslead]

I've read reviews all over the web, as most of you certainly have.

We all also know that there are two 'mayor' publications, that is Anandtech and Tom's Hardware, followed by HardOCP, Hexus, etc.

However, it has come to my attention that there are severe differences on both mayor reviews, since AT basicly has shown us that A64/FX kicks the living hell in 18/20 tests out of any P4 solution, Tom shows us a very different thing, pointing 2/3 tests won by Intel's solutions.

Now, I've always seen Tom favor way too much P4s, but... I personally beleive more in AT's test methods. What do you guys think?

 

[Aegion]

Originally posted by: Aenslead
I've read reviews all over the web, as most of you certainly have.

We all also know that there are two 'mayor' publications, that is Anandtech and Tom's Hardware, followed by HardOCP, Hexus, etc.

However, it has come to my attention that there are severe differences on both mayor reviews, since AT basicly has shown us that A64/FX kicks the living hell in 18/20 tests out of any P4 solution, Tom shows us a very different thing, pointing 2/3 tests won by Intel's solutions.

Now, I've always seen Tom favor way too much P4s, but... I personally beleive more in AT's test methods. What do you guys think?

Among other things, Tom stacked his review with large numbers of heavily P4 optimized media type benchmarks, unless you're primarily into media encoding these shouldn't particularly matter for you. Even more obnoxiously,with one of the Benchmarks the P4 won handily in, Tom freely admited was meaningless today at the bottom of the page. (Then why did you include it Tom?!) The kicker is how much the AMD 64 chip beats out the competition on certain gaming benchmarks. Ace's Hardware benchmarking of Medieval: Total War has the AMD 64 benchmarked against the P4 and P4EE with the following results at 1024x768x32, a resolution which may actually be utilized when playing the game.

I have run this benchmark over and over again: the Athlon 64 FX simply kills the competition. 43% faster than the 3.2 GHz Pentium 4, and no less than 32% faster than the Extreme Edition. The Athlon 64 FX is the ultimate 3D strategic CPU.

http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000265

This is particularly significant because Rome: Total War is coming out soon and is reportedly much more hardware demanding. I would expect that the engine will generate similar cpu results in comparison with the two processors.

 

Originally posted by: Aenslead
I've read reviews all over the web, as most of you certainly have.

We all also know that there are two 'mayor' publications, that is Anandtech and Tom's Hardware, followed by HardOCP, Hexus, etc.

However, it has come to my attention that there are severe differences on both mayor reviews, since AT basicly has shown us that A64/FX kicks the living hell in 18/20 tests out of any P4 solution, Tom shows us a very different thing, pointing 2/3 tests won by Intel's solutions.

Now, I've always seen Tom favor way too much P4s, but... I personally beleive more in AT's test methods. What do you guys think?

If you really want to know what I think. Your statement,"I personally believe more in AT's test methods." What methods are different? Why are their results different when they shouldn't be.
I want Anandtech and Tom's to get together for this test. To build two identical systems each from scratch. Using only the highest quality parts and keep the same whatever can be kept the same. e.g. vid card, mem, hd, sound card, nic, power supply.

I want them in the same room ALL day doing the same tests at the same time using the same configs. Can any of you tell me how the results can be different!!! They cant be!!! someone is lying!!! I challenge Tom's and Anand to do this.

How many of you know that this will never happen... Mods are going to read this post and cringe.

GM

 

[Overkiller]

i forget where but i remember reading a post that a great benchmark for a system is SImcity 3000...or is it 4000...one of those @ 1024x768 with a million ppl in the city. the reason is that with a million ppl the CPU load will bring (at the time...6 months ago) any pc to a crawl...i dont know if this is still true or if the information was false but it could be another added benchie.

 

[Aegion]

Tom's Hardware also made this brilliant comment.

Companies such as ID Software, who are responsible for titles like Quake3 and Unreal Tournament 2003, are not ready to jump onto the 64-bit bandwagon.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_64-12.html#not_yet_available_software_for_64_bits

Two major problems with this statement.

1. Unreal Tournament 2003 was made by Epic, not Id Software.

2. UT2003 was a premier product that AMD was showing off as a 64bit application running under SUSE linux on the Opteron when it was released, and the head developer Tim Sweney has already talked about adding 64-bit software support for Windows as soon as the 64 bit version is released.

Observation taken from this Slashdot comment after independent confirmation that Tom has made that statement, and not even bothered to fix it yet.

 

[newbiepcuser]

Believe in what your wallet allows you too

 

[CarpeDiem99]

Originally posted by: newbiepcuser
Believe in what your wallet allows you too

LoL so true

 

[Jeff7181]

I believe this... the most thorough benchmark I've ever seen.

 

[SectorZero]

Regardless of what reviewer was biased to either CPU, the thing that stands out to me is the fact that the 64 is now competitave in areas
that were once an Intel stronghold(content creation, ripping songs and movies).

Now if only AMD would include some kind of multithreading technology in their CPUs.

Was considering Intel for my next upgrade, but now I think I'll wait a little longer and see how this plays out.

The 64 is looking damn good from where I'm sitting.

 

[BDSM]

The Aceshardware review is great in my opinion. T he review is very professionally in my opinion.

Ppl may think what they want but in my opinion thg is way to intel biased.. First of all he simply chooses most of the benchmarks to favor Intel..
And on top of that he "modifies" some other benchmarks to make Intel look better. Take the X2 game for instance. Tom used "shadows disabled" which apparently makes the intel processors fare better comapred to the A64. Compare with aces yourself if you want!

Why would anyone use settings like this if not to favor one side??. I don't think thg makes this sort of "misstakes" over and over again for nothing.

 

[Aenslead]

I beleive Tom is actually feeling like some kind of a 'review god', since he made the findings on P3 @ 1.13 slot-1; however, I have seen his reviews slowly pointing much much more towards Intel, biased, in many occasions.

So, EITHER he is using, intentionally, heavily optimized software for P4 to make it look much better, or he is not using "correctly" AMD hardware... or both, because some of the tests he does are not actually used by other sites.

AT's test suits try to be the less-synthetic possible, that is, no Sandra and no PC Mark, wich is great, since it gives you a much better look at REAL WORLD, REAL NUMBERS, REAL PERFORMANCE.

Shame on Tom.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: gorillaman

If you really want to know what I think. Your statement,"I personally believe more in AT's test methods." What methods are different? Why are their results different when they shouldn't be.
I want Anandtech and Tom's to get together for this test. To build two identical systems each from scratch. Using only the highest quality parts and keep the same whatever can be kept the same. e.g. vid card, mem, hd, sound card, nic, power supply.

I want them in the same room ALL day doing the same tests at the same time using the same configs. Can any of you tell me how the results can be different!!! They cant be!!! someone is lying!!! I challenge Tom's and Anand to do this.

How many of you know that this will never happen... Mods are going to read this post and cringe.

GM

Good lord what are you talking about now!? Explain to me why every online publication now needs to run the exact same tests?? There would be no difference in any of the results, and we get only one view on the "total picture". Want a test run where everyone was in the same room? Look no further than the initial Half Life 2 results. They were all run at that ATI event. Look how much controversey that one generated.

as for your question "What methods are different? Why are their results different when they shouldn't be."

Anand and Tom have different philosophies on benchmarking. Most notably, Tom has no moral objections in overclocking (some) of the new chips he gets and throwing those results into the mix (ie the P4 EE), while Anand sticks with the chips he received and benchmarks them on their own merits. If Anand does an overclocking section, it's separate and well differentiated from the main review. This does not skew the picture like Tom does oh so often.

Again, why do you want to cover Tom's ass so much? Is this your latest solution to blanket Tom from criticism - force him to do all his benchmarks with Anand? The whole point is we want more independent test results, so we can compare them and get a view of the bigger picture.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I believe this... the most thorough benchmark I've ever seen.

Second that! Right there with Ace's...

I am surprised why not a lot of people refer to techreport as a big source.... it is usually my first place. Maybe this event will give the site the boost it needs....

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Aegion
Tom's Hardware also made this brilliant comment.

Companies such as ID Software, who are responsible for titles like Quake3 and Unreal Tournament 2003, are not ready to jump onto the 64-bit bandwagon.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_64-12.html#not_yet_available_software_for_64_bits

Two major problems with this statement.

1. Unreal Tournament 2003 was made by Epic, not Id Software.

2. UT2003 was a premier product that AMD was showing off as a 64bit application running under SUSE linux on the Opteron when it was released, and the head developer Tim Sweney has already talked about adding 64-bit software support for Windows as soon as the 64 bit version is released.

Observation taken from this Slashdot comment after independent confirmation that Tom has made that statement, and not even bothered to fix it yet.

Yeah um, syntax can be a little confusing in that sentence but it certainly is not incorrect. "Companies such as ID Software, who are responsible for titles like Quake3 and Unreal Tournament 2003, are not ready to jump onto the 64-bit bandwagon."

Never does the sentence say that ID made both of the games, just that "companies such as" ID Software made those games and are not ready to jump onto the 64-bit bandwagon. Duh, 64-bit bandwagon isn't even here and 32-bit will still be dominant for at least another year give or take a few months/weeks and therefore games will be 32-bit for a good time to come until a large enough niche of gamers can run 64-bit games for the developers to make a decent profit.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Aegion

Originally posted by: Aenslead
I've read reviews all over the web, as most of you certainly have.

We all also know that there are two 'mayor' publications, that is Anandtech and Tom's Hardware, followed by HardOCP, Hexus, etc.

However, it has come to my attention that there are severe differences on both mayor reviews, since AT basicly has shown us that A64/FX kicks the living hell in 18/20 tests out of any P4 solution, Tom shows us a very different thing, pointing 2/3 tests won by Intel's solutions.

Now, I've always seen Tom favor way too much P4s, but... I personally beleive more in AT's test methods. What do you guys think?

Among other things, Tom stacked his review with large numbers of heavily P4 optimized media type benchmarks, unless you're primarily into media encoding these shouldn't particularly matter for you. Even more obnoxiously,with one of the Benchmarks the P4 won handily in, Tom freely admited was meaningless today at the bottom of the page. (Then why did you include it Tom?!) The kicker is how much the AMD 64 chip beats out the competition on certain gaming benchmarks. Ace's Hardware benchmarking of Medieval: Total War has the AMD 64 benchmarked against the P4 and P4EE with the following results at 1024x768x32, a resolution which may actually be utilized when playing the game.

I have run this benchmark over and over again: the Athlon 64 FX simply kills the competition. 43% faster than the 3.2 GHz Pentium 4, and no less than 32% faster than the Extreme Edition. The Athlon 64 FX is the ultimate 3D strategic CPU.

http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000265

This is particularly significant because Rome: Total War is coming out soon and is reportedly much more hardware demanding. I would expect that the engine will generate similar cpu results in comparison with the two processors.

Oh quite your f***ing whining....optimized my arse...He did more multimedia test with more different programs then anyone...When someone does one mpeg2 test from one maker that should be questionable...he did many and showed equal to same comparison across theboard athlon 64 3200+ and FX do not beat the p4 3.2ee or even the p4 3.2ghz in still most all MM test.....I don't pay much attention to those oc'd p4ee's cause he didn't oc the althon fx which he could have....

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Aenslead
I've read reviews all over the web, as most of you certainly have.

We all also know that there are two 'mayor' publications, that is Anandtech and Tom's Hardware, followed by HardOCP, Hexus, etc.

However, it has come to my attention that there are severe differences on both mayor reviews, since AT basicly has shown us that A64/FX kicks the living hell in 18/20 tests out of any P4 solution, Tom shows us a very different thing, pointing 2/3 tests won by Intel's solutions.

Now, I've always seen Tom favor way too much P4s, but... I personally beleive more in AT's test methods. What do you guys think?

You ppl piss me off....You look so much through yuou amd tinted glasses and see what you want to see....

How many Multimedia apps did AT run???? How many gaming apps did they run??? See my point...Now go look at the other site and do the same thing...Get my point??? probably not!!!!

A64 = best gaming

P4c and p4ee = best multimedia....

Enough said???

 

[Aegion]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Yeah um, syntax can be a little confusing in that sentence but it certainly is not incorrect. "Companies such as ID Software, who are responsible for titles like Quake3 and Unreal Tournament 2003, are not ready to jump onto the 64-bit bandwagon."

Never does the sentence say that ID made both of the games, just that "companies such as " ID Software made those games and are not ready to jump onto the 64-bit bandwagon. Duh, 64-bit bandwagon isn't even here and 32-bit will still be dominant for at least another year give or take a few months/weeks and therefore games will be 32-bit for a good time to come until a large enough niche of gamers can run 64-bit games for the developers to make a decent profit.

Its still badly misleading to look at it most charitably. Unreal Tournament 2003 actually runs on the beta version of Windows 2003 that supports AMD 64 bit instruction set RIGHT NOW! Firingsquad sucessfully ran a benchmark using the 64 bit support for Unreal Tournament 2003.

http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/athlon_fx_preview/page12.asp

It does currently run slower under these circumstances currently since the OS and the drivers have not been optimized for 64 bit opperations at this stage in beta testing, but the game is already supporting 64 bits for the AMD 64. Its safe to say full effective 64 bit support with Unreal Tournament 2003 will be available as soon as Windows 2003 is released.

Mentioning UT 2003 certainly confused the issue and did a diservice to Tom's Hardware readers.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Duvie

You ppl piss me off....You look so much through yuou amd tinted glasses and see what you want to see....

How many Multimedia apps did AT run???? How many gaming apps did they run??? See my point...Now go look at the other site and do the same thing...Get my point??? probably not!!!!

A64 = best gaming

P4c and p4ee = best multimedia....

Enough said???

Whoah, easy there! I think the general consensus is that the P4 is still the king for encoding/streaming applications.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: Aenslead
I've read reviews all over the web, as most of you certainly have.

We all also know that there are two 'mayor' publications, that is Anandtech and Tom's Hardware, followed by HardOCP, Hexus, etc.

However, it has come to my attention that there are severe differences on both mayor reviews, since AT basicly has shown us that A64/FX kicks the living hell in 18/20 tests out of any P4 solution, Tom shows us a very different thing, pointing 2/3 tests won by Intel's solutions.

Now, I've always seen Tom favor way too much P4s, but... I personally beleive more in AT's test methods. What do you guys think?

You ppl piss me off....You look so much through yuou amd tinted glasses and see what you want to see....

How many Multimedia apps did AT run???? How many gaming apps did they run??? See my point...Now go look at the other site and do the same thing...Get my point??? probably not!!!!

A64 = best gaming

P4c and p4ee = best multimedia....

Enough said???

:beer: its gonna be alright man. I agree with you, and others do too.

 

[THUGSROOK]

but Duvie ~ what about encoding MM while playing a game?

 

[Budman]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
but Duvie ~ what about encoding MM while playing a game?

Thugs dont even think about the A64,I dont think Microsoft will be releasing a 64bit ver of Win98SE. :beer: