Toms Hardware apologized, it was a mistake, I withdraw my statement of cheating

[sna]

Hi, all...

Well it was a mistake after all, the Tomshardware Apologized for adding the 3.4, 3.6 EE in the AMD64/P4EE performance test.

This is the right way Toms. sorry for calling u cheaters.

also for others who flamed me this proves that my way of thinking is right and it was a bad way of "showing things"..

now I respect their conclusion more but still have my own openion about AMD64 VS P4EE

from TOMSHARDWARE :

Update Sept 24,2003: Unfortunately we have made a mistake in the original article: In addition to the official P4 EE 3.2GHz we had included benchmark scores of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz. These values were planned for a future THG article and were not intended to be included here. We would like to apologize especially to those readers who misinterpreted our charts. The two bars of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz have now been removed. However, this issue does not affect our conclusion as we have only compared the official P4 3.2GHz EE to all other test candidates in our original article. For your information: The press sample of the P4 Extreme provided by Intel does not have a multiplier lock and is already designed for higher clock speeds.


link : http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/200...lon_64-22.html

thanx Toms and I apologize too

[Voodoo 5 5500]

Originally posted by sna
Hi, all...

Well it was a mistake after all, the Tomshardware Apologized for adding the 3.4, 3.6 EE in the AMD64/P4EE performance test.

This is the right way Toms. sorry for calling u cheaters.

also for others who flamed me this proves that my way of thinking is right and it was a bad way of "showing things"..

now I respect their conclusion more but still have my own openion about AMD64 VS P4EE

from TOMSHARDWARE :

Update Sept 24,2003: Unfortunately we have made a mistake in the original article: In addition to the official P4 EE 3.2GHz we had included benchmark scores of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz. These values were planned for a future THG article and were not intended to be included here. We would like to apologize especially to those readers who misinterpreted our charts. The two bars of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz have now been removed. However, this issue does not affect our conclusion as we have only compared the official P4 3.2GHz EE to all other test candidates in our original article. For your information: The press sample of the P4 Extreme provided by Intel does not have a multiplier lock and is already designed for higher clock speeds.


link : http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/200...lon_64-22.html

thanx Toms and I apologize too

You are a complete and total ****ing idiot.
That update was added hours after the review was thrown online so the fact that you raised all of this **** over nothing is pointless.

[m0rbid]

why can't we all just get along?

[KaoTiK]

Originally posted by m0rbid
why can't we all just get along?

ROFLMFAO!

[akaBruno]

I don't think that it's crap, at all. Tom asks for all he gets. If it weren't for people challenging his fud there would be no retractions or clarifications.

[mikead_99]

Voodoo 5 5500:

You are a complete and total ****ing idiot. That update was added hours after the review was thrown online so the fact that you raised all of this **** over nothing is pointless

****Snicker****
Maybe a little harsh, but somewhat valid. I never understood the whole "cheat" thread, it's just a comparative review. I think it's nice to get peeks on what's coming down the pipe. On the other hand, maybe Tom's should have done the comparison against something like "The world's fastest desktop" from Apple.

[Voodoo 5 5500]

Originally posted by akaBruno
I don't think that it's crap, at all. Tom asks for all he gets. If it weren't for people challenging his fud there would be no retractions or clarifications.

There was no retraction his conclusion and results were not changed at all.
What happened is some benchmarks from an overclocked P4EE from their next article were put into this review by mistake.
Tomshardware caught the mistake hours after the review and the results were removed and saved for the next article.

[AMD Inside]

Hours? At least a day. I thought it was like 2 days. All moot now anyway. And did you have to be so harsh?

[sna]

Originally posted by Voodoo 5 5500
You are a complete and total ****ing idiot.
That update was added hours after the review was thrown online so the fact that you raised all of this **** over nothing is pointless.

Ignoring

[flutie98]

Originally posted by mikead_99
Voodoo 5 5500:

****Snicker****
Maybe a little harsh, but somewhat valid. I never understood the whole "cheat" thread, it's just a comparative review. I think it's nice to get peeks on what's coming down the pipe. On the other hand, maybe Tom's should have done the comparison against something like "The world's fastest desktop" from Apple.

lmfao

[Tan]

I am confising after read the article from the Tom Hardware. How the comparison work done, it they comparing the top model of both AMD and intel CPU or compare CPU at the same level. If in the firt case, they is nothing wrong if compare P43.6g with AMD64 3200+ or other way. If in the second case, it sure be compare P43.2g with P43.2gHz. I am confusing why they pull back the P43.4 and P43.6 benckmatch. Are they mean the chip are not available yet (but how they test the beckmatch at the first state/firt time). If they pull back the benckmatch of P43.4 and P43.6 but still maintain the P43.2, is that mean the P43.2 is available? I really confusing when they public the articles at the firt time and then pull back some of the benckmatch and still remaining the same conclusion.