AMD64VS P4EE - TOMS HARDWARE is cheating really

Hi,

I read the TOMS review about the athlon 64, fx51 and Intel EE..

he says that intel wins 30+ times AMD 15 times or so..

The main thing I want to say here is : this is bluffing

how can you compare two processors one with 3.2Ghz and the other is 2GHZ and then say that the 3.2GHZ one with 2mL3 cache wins 30 or so times in applications that are frequency Hungry...
when I see that a 2GHZ CPU is ONLY 5% lower in performance than a 3.2GHZ with more l3 cache then I say that the AMD is a winner 100% add to it the 150$-200$ price difference between the AMD and P4EE...

now if the AMD made an actual 3.2GHZ Processor and release it for the same price of INTEL P$ EE 3.2 I d expect that processor to KILL the P4..

we must be fair when we judge things... the AMD is "named" 3200+ but it is 2GH inside also it is cheaper and COMPARABLE to a 3.2GHZ P4 with add on 2mb cache... if they were at the same price then he argument of TOMS is right but there is a big difference

compare a 450$ athlon 64 to 600$ P4 3.2 and around 900$ EE

the FX is 2200 too...

I see the AMD ONLY PROBLEM is chipsets the INTEL chipsets are more powerfull and thats it

*snore*


These points are made over and over, and still have no more validity then when they were first made.

The FX and the EE are at the same price point in the same target market. That makes them competitors, and they should be tested under as many programs as possible. Sure, the P4 dos better at video encoding. The FX does better at games. Does this mean that we should test only in games or only in video encoding? No.

Incidentally, I also tend to mistrust anything from THG, mostly because their articles have shown so much technical innacuracy (they didn't know what they were talking about) and bias (to both sides - it all depends on author and timing). I'm wary of this review becuase it disagrees with most other net reviews.

The real question is - why are we comparing a chip I can buy today with a chip I might be able to buy in 2-3 months?

Well said

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nForcer
Well said

---

Alright so this works both ways the K8 has an ondie memory controller which the P4 does not so I guess thats unfair aswell?.

FYI The AthlonFX is the same price as the EE and the overall system cost will be alot higher since the FX requiers registerd ram.
As for the Athlon64 it is faster then the 3.2C but it also has more cache and a ondie memory controller so thats an unfair comparison.
Your argument about cache/mhz/controller works both ways so stop trying to use it like it only works one way.

You AMD fanfgts tried the same argument with the origonal P4 and its need for RDRAM well the FX is the same way now so stfu.

Is anyone else getting tired of these?

Hey, AMD chose to go the lower clock route and they market their 3200 against the 3.2 ghz p4, hence the 3200 rating. So you can compare a 3.2 ghz chip to a the 2ghz(i think it's 2ghz) fx. You can't say extra cache is unfair, if both chips had exactly equal specs, they'd be the same chip and perform the same.....duh. I mean sorry you're disappointed that the fx didn't destroy the p4 ee...but the comparison is fair, it tells you how 2 chips do head to head. If it makes you feel any better the p4 ee isn't available yet....

If one chip was made by earthlings and the other chip was made by martions, and the martions won everysingle benchmark, it would still be a fair comparision since they are testing PERFORMANCE, not who performs better under X price, or with X technology.

This doesnt show that toms is anywhere near cheating.


Now what i think is almost a crime is comparing the A64 and FX against the P4 EE, when the EE wasnt out at the time of the reviews, then going ahead and saying Intel Wins X out Y times. (while i havent read Toms, just looked at the benches i tend to think this is what he's done)


I know a fair share of poeple have done this, but come on, compare released technology to released technology, not "will be released soon" technology to released technology

If Tom were to compare a 200mhz Pentium MMX to the Athlon64... intel would win. :D www.tomsintelfudware.com/ is spam.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Colossus
Is anyone else getting tired of these?

---

Oh no! I LOVE listening to people argue about the very same things OVER AND OVER AND OVER again, Colossus! I must say though, that I really do want to see AMD release the Athlon64 at the same clock speed as the P4, and to keep matching its clock speed until Intel literally knuckles under. Once both companies are about 50% market share, then I'll be satisfied. O.k., o.k., I'll admit I'd like to see AMD with 51% of the market, and Intel with 49%.

;0

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anubis44
Oh no! I LOVE listening to people argue about the very same things OVER AND OVER AND OVER again, Colossus! I must say though, that I really do want to see AMD release the Athlon64 at the same clock speed as the P4, and to keep matching its clock speed until Intel literally knuckles under. Once both companies are about 50% market share, then I'll be satisfied. O.k., o.k., I'll admit I'd like to see AMD with 51% of the market, and Intel with 49%.

;0

---

True, if AMD does match clock for clock.. The Intel would be far to slow...

But Intel will never loose the market.. Unless they do something seriously stupid for a few years :)

There stand is just way to strong to even drop that hard.. Also AMD has to pull some prize out of their behinds to blow away Intel.. Which they havent done yet.. But the combo of those two might drop Intel's shares :)

You wanna know what's really depressing? We have to go through this all over again when the Pentium EE is released. We get to rehash all the same aurguements all over again. Now that's a depressing thought:(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by akaBruno
If Tom were to compare a 200mhz Pentium MMX to the Athlon64... intel would win. :D www.tomsintelfudware.com/ is spam.

---

LOL Tom was the original AMD fanboy. He didn't have a single good thing to say about Intel until he "discovered" the P4 was a much better processor then most people thought it was, and Tom is always willing to talk about the things he has "discovered".

It was only then anti Tom stuff became popular. It's strange how any/every site or benchmark that even remotely says anything positive about Intel immediately becomes a target for this kind of FUD…

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Moridin
LOL Tom was the original AMD fanboy. He didn't have a single good thing to say about Intel until he "discovered" the P4 was a much better processor then most people thought it was, and Tom is always willing to talk about the things he has "discovered".

It was only then anti Tom stuff became popular. It's strange how any/every site or benchmark that even remotely says anything positive about Intel immediately becomes a target for this kind of FUD…

---

So true. My AMD fan/Intel hating buddy sent me to Tom's for AMD support when researching what became the P4 in my signature ;) (research I got from THG was confirmed by other sites too, ah how a couple of months changes everything :p)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ranger2992
You wanna know what's really depressing? We have to go through this all over again when the Pentium EE is released. We get to rehash all the same aurguements all over again. Now that's a depressing thought:(

---

And... we'll have to go through it again when benchmarks start showing up running 64bit OS's and apps. :p ;) :D

BTW, Tom only grudingly gave AMD credit when it was stomping the early P4's. Hell, the P3 stomped the first P4's. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by akaBruno
And... we'll have to go through it again when benchmarks start showing up running 64bit OS's and apps. :p ;) :D

---

During the transition from 16-bit to 64-bit this took more then a decade, and that is with a real need for 32-bit software and 100% of processor sales supporting the 32-bit extensions. Currently less then 1% of X86 processor sales support 64-bit extensions, and Most people never run an application that needs more then a couple hundred MB of memory, let alone 4GB.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by akaBruno

BTW, Tom only grudingly gave AMD credit when it was stomping the early P4's. Hell, the P3 stomped the first P4's. :D

---

The first P4's easily outperformed contemporary PIII's. At that time the P4 needed a roughly 20% clock rate advantage to achieve the same performance (less in FP intensive apps). But, the P4 was released at 1.5 GHz, and the PIII was only running at 1 GHz at the time. The Athlon had a small performance lead over the P4 but even then many sites were benchmarking the P4 with a buggy nVidia driver that didn't recognize the P4 which created a significant performance drop.

Well since we're talking about good ole Tom... here's a link to his site back in the good old days of the 1st P4's:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20001122/p4-04.html

Quote:

---

Originally posted by akaBruno
Well since we're talking about good ole Tom... here's a link to his site back in the good old days of the 1st P4's:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20001122/p4-04.html

---

Here's a hint, never read Tom's "analysis". He's a dentist, not an engineer or computer scientist. He does do fairly consistent benchmarking, but ultimately he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Try taking a look at the benchmarks and analyze them yourself.

For example, back in the days of the K6 he spent years pushing the idea that there was no need to replace socket 7 and bashed Intel at every opportunity for introducing Slot 1&2. He just didn't understand that accessing your L2 cache over the FSB (which is how socket 7 worked) was a major performance killer. The fact is the K6 would have been a very competitive chip if AMD hadn't crippled it by forcing it into Socket 7, but Tom never did clue into this. Of course despite the Intel bashing for moving away from Socket 7, he never made a peep when AMD did the same thing.

BTW, the P4 has not changed significantly since it was introduced, Prescott is the first major revision. Northwood wasn't much more then a die shrink with some extra cache thrown on, so we are really still looking at the "poor performing" first generation of P4.

The major change that the Northwood brought back to intel was it's overclockability. Enthusiasts/overclockers don't make up a large market share, but... they are the "word of mouth" that can kill a chip's reputation.

Look how the Tbred A almost ruined the Athlon name, when it wouldn't OC. All the while the Northwood's were overclocking like rockets. The Tbred was a late release to begin w/. Add to that, months to revamp it into the Tbred B, and voi la... a drop in AMD's market share and reputation. AMD is always late w/ it's releases e.g. the Hammers are a late release too. Now, there is speculation that they can't even meet the demand on the new Athlon64's. Sheesh... it is a wonder that they're still in business.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Moridin
Here's a hint, never read Tom's "analysis". He's a dentist, not an engineer or computer scientist. He does do fairly consistent benchmarking, but ultimately he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Try taking a look at the benchmarks and analyze them yourself.

---

true but he hardly writes anything on the site these days let alone benchmark. Most articles are being written by other people. And that is IMHO a huge difference.

I guess being a dentist pays better

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Colossus
Is anyone else getting tired of these?

---

No BS. this is a pointless thread. the only reason why Im posting is because of the very improper title...

I am in no way a fan of Toms hardware... But **** like this is not warranted in any shape or form. They compared two of the top procs?? How the h e double hockey sticks is that cheating?? They tend not to really have the technical experience they should have in order to make good reviews but **** like this is libel.

Me defending THG is quite rare. But this thread that sna created really erked me

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jamesavery22
No BS. this is a pointless thread. the only reason why Im posting is because of the very improper title...

I am in no way a fan of Toms hardware... But **** like this is not warranted in any shape or form. They compared two of the top procs?? How the h e double hockey sticks is that cheating?? They tend not to really have the technical experience they should have in order to make good reviews but **** like this is libel.

Me defending THG is quite rare. But this thread that sna created really erked me

---

NOW COME ON

saying the truth might hurt but it is the TRUTH

First. When you compare two products they BOTH MUST be in the market... also, He overclocked the EE upto 3.6 just to add some extra light to it

Second there is NO NO price/Performance judgement at all there should be a PRICE weight function to multiply with every result of each test u cant say a -100$ processor wins 15 times and a +100$ wins 30 times while indeed the AMD is lower in most cases by 5% which is better than the 15% price difference

I loke for the EE presales it is a whooping 900$ and the nonee is 600$ compared to AMDfx 750$ and amd64 450$

ADD TO THIS THE FACT THAT THE INTEL IS NOT EVEN RELEASED

now if thats not CHEATING and SPOLING AMD RELEASE I wonder what do u call it...

In other reviews of TOMS he does the opposite.. for example when he compared some LCD monitors or so there was a superior lcd I remember that he didnt include it in the test cos it was not released yet(1 month or so) while he knew it was better (thats fair)

now in this case he ignores it

I call it CHEATING.. or Intel loving

I prefer INTEL and I am not AMD fan but I can see and say the truth

It is not cheating!

It is released.. But just because its not available in Retail doesnt mean it is not out... I already called a place that has them in stock!!!!!

Second, The chip itself is under $800 which is about the same price as the FX-51 and it performs on par with it...

Not to mention the motherboards for the P4EE is much better then any A64 board out right now due to bugs and problems!

Also, Tom showed a STOCK 3.2EE with a overclocked 3.2EE @ 3.4 and 3.6 to show how well it overclocks and compares!

The overclocked scores was not even included in the final thoughts and conclusions.. So please get your facts straight before quoting toms :)

Its funny to me, how if someone likes the review on Tom`s it the greatest site in the world and if they don`t its the worse site and hes taking money for giving a good review.:D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Colossus
It is not cheating!

It is released.. But just because its not available in Retail doesnt mean it is not out... I already called a place that has them in stock!!!!!

Second, The chip itself is under $800 which is about the same price as the FX-51 and it performs on par with it...

Not to mention the motherboards for the P4EE is much better then any A64 board out right now due to bugs and problems!

Also, Tom showed a STOCK 3.2EE with a overclocked 3.2EE @ 3.4 and 3.6 to show how well it overclocks and compares!

The overclocked scores was not even included in the final thoughts and conclusions.. So please get your facts straight before quoting toms :)

---

Conclusion?? ever heared about psycho effect...??? it adds some lights

and second.. why didnt he overclock the AMD?? huh???

and last...

when the P4ee hit the market the AMD will lower the price

even now the AMD is 100$ less, yess they are selling the AMD64 with a free mobo (a64 + mobo bundle)

from asus and MSI the top mobo with Kt8 with processor is for 570$ that is a 200$ motherboard for 70$ only

and it is the full feature mobo top line

100$ less? LEts do the math! :D Granted it might come with a board but those new boards suck! Very buggy!!!

Lets see
- Opteron 2.0 - $813
- Asus SK8N - $221

Compared to
- Intel 3.2EE - $800 guesstimate
- Intel BOXD875PBZLK - $150 (same features as SK8N)

So $950 (P4) vs $1034 (AMD)

Yeah I know what will get my money! :D

Oh yeah not to mention I dont need REGISTERED RAM :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sna
Conclusion?? ever heared about psycho effect...??? it adds some lights

and second.. why didnt he overclock the AMD?? huh???

and last...

when the P4ee hit the market the AMD will lower the price

even now the AMD is 100$ less, yess they are selling the AMD64 with a free mobo (a64 + mobo bundle)

from asus and MSI the top mobo with Kt8 with processor is for 570$ that is a 200$ motherboard for 70$ only

and it is the full feature mobo top line

---