This article proves that THG is biased when it comes to Intel vs. AMD

[Deagle]

Here's the link (http://www20.tomshardware.com/column/20040218/index.html)

<b>"They are the freaks of low-cost computing, the poor, downtrodden users of products that never seem to be able to match PR numbers to actual performance, now almost beaten into marginality for all time."</b>:eek:

[Abbadon]

:eek:

That is harsh language indeed. I always liked THG but this is way out of line (unless the writer wanted to be funny, in which case he's a royal idiot).

[Steve]

We're all biased, Deagle. You, me, everyone. Just think of what that review would have sounded like if they weren't so biased in favor of AMD... ;)

[Deagle]

That's true Steve but I think in that article they was just attacking AMD and putting down all AMD users.:mad:
:D

[Steve]

hmmm...I thought they went pretty easy on AMD...:D

[Deagle]

You mean...you don't like AMD and people who uses their processors?:eek:

[Steve]

Not at all, my good man. Some of my best friends use AMD. I'm just slightly biased. :p

[Deagle]

Oh, well you should try using AMD cpu, it's cheap(that's the selling point) and effective.:D But I don't always say AMD whenever someone ask me which processor they should get. Intel have its good points as well.

[Steve]

Actually, at work I have 18 computers with AMD processors. All the way from 486's to a 1.6 ghz. They ain't Pentium though...

[jabarnutcase]

Cool!!! The ol' "which is better AMD or INTEL" debate. :D

I've seen these debates go on forever and never get resolved.....Me? I have both and they both work great! :p

[deddard]

Ok, so I'm a freak of low cost blah blah blah...
Personally I don't give a monkey's who is the 'best' - I never buy the highest possible proc anyway.
Currently I've got 5 PCs running AMD processors from Athlon 1100 to an XP 3000.
THG have proved themselves to be untrustworthy when it comes to reviews. Anyone who is completely bias in favour of one processor over another is a bit sad to say the least. I hope they were well paid.
I'd be perfectly happy using Intels, but the cost difference isn't justifiable for my needs - it may well be if you wanted to use the full capabilities of the latest dual channel memory, but not for me; besides - the AMD 64 Proc is here already and is currently the fastest on the block (at least for a couple of days!)

Anyway, I'm going to go away and do freaky, downtrodden things........:D

[Abbadon]

I personally prefer VIA-procs. At least they're not out there fighting childish Mhz-wars... :D

[jabarnutcase]

Like I said, I use both Intel and AMD. They both serve my purposes nicely.
I guess if I were forced to make a choice, it would be something really silly....Like what the names remind me of. :D

(See "clickable" links below)

http://www.amd.com/images/hd_amd_lg.gif (http://www.amd.com/us-en/)

http://www.intel.com/sites/nav/pix/header_logo.gif (http://www.mattel.com/index.asp?f=true)

:p

[Abbadon]

the common nicknames: "Amdroid" and "Intelover" should make an obvious point about which firm still has heart for its customers :p

[DwnMp3]

http://www.hmstudios.net/teammu/thg.jpg

[jabarnutcase]

Hehe...I doubt either has much "Heart" for it's customers.

It's all about the Cash. Funny how Tech Support seems to go right out the window in many cases, once they empty your pockets. :p

[mjc]

Very interesting, we once again are faced with the classic mine is better than yours with emotions leading the way arguement.

I say, use what you like, as there is not all that much difference when we are talking a few nanoseconds (unless of course you are a speed junkie and want to make your processor sit on the verge of melting.....)

Most users don't care about what brand, they care about whether or not it works.

[jabarnutcase]

I couldn't agree more mjc !

I think that was the point I was trying to make..... I may have done a poor job of it though. :p

[Abbadon]

Frankly, I've always used intel-stuff because um... Dunno realy. :p My first one wasn't an Ibuiltit so I hadn't much choice then. My current one is an intell because they seemed to be the faster one at that point.

That's why my next rig will probably be an amd, just to see what it does. I'll probably be confirmed in my current believe that it doesn't make much of a difference. :D

Still, it often is fun to see the zealotic supporters of both sides at each others throaths. I always had heard that THG was biased this way, never saw it spilled out like this though... :eek:

[Steve]

Heh heh...most people have brand loyalty, whether it's AMD/Intel, Ford/Chevy/Dodge, Gateway/Dell/Ibuiltit, etc. When I went shopping for my first computer the salesman told me that Intels were the norm and AMD was only used in low end computers. First impression are hard to beat.

One thing I'm pretty sure of, though. If I sat down to use a computer, I wouldn't be able to tell which brand of processor it had if I didn't look. And I doubt that most people (if any) could either. They both get the job done.

It's fun to debate the point once in a while though...:D

[Orion]

You know, one of the only things that really puts me in favor of AMD is that I can buy the barton 2500 for around 80, or maybe 70 now, dollars, and then overclock it to the barton 3200 speeds. That's enough of a dollar for performance to lean me that way...but how did I get started onto AMD? Saphalline had an intel, and so we figured we'd put me on an AMD to compare. not really much of a difference, actually...pity...

The way I see it is thusly: imagine you have to move 60 people from one point to another. you have two cars-a ferrari 2 seater, and a station wagon 8 seater. (the kind with the seats in the back, but can't go faster than 45 miles an hour-assume one of those stereotypical old drivers) you allot 30 people to each car, and send them off. the station wagon is more efficient, carting more people at slower speeds. the ferrari is less efficient carting 2 people at high speeds. is one better than the other? not really, assuming infinite Gasoline. (in this analogy, gasoline equates to electricity) they finish around the same time, given the proper ratios. so it doesn't really matter much to me.

can you tell my wife thinks in analogies? I always have to make computer analogies for her...and sometimes they're so ridiculous I scare myself...

Orion

[jabarnutcase]

Hehe....I like that analogy. :)

I think we have to be very grateful for our modern "transportation", whatever vehicle we use.

After all, it really wasn't that long ago we were traveling by Bicycle and measuring our travel time with an hour glass. :rolleyes:

[john5211]

So I read the original artical over at THG, and I'm a little confused ...

Which side are they supposed to be biased against? I got the impression that the author of the article wasn't particularly impressed with either AMD or Intel.

Moreover, how does expressing some opinions in an opinion column make an organization biased. Omid Rahmat (the guy who wrote the coulumn) is on the "Buisness Team," so it seems unlikely that he excerts some uber-influence over hardware reviews.

Just sort of wondering ...

John

[DwnMp3]

Originally posted by john5211

Which side are they supposed to be biased against?

"the hackles of delusional AMD lovers."

"Hah! We are proven right! Intel is copying our beloved god "

"AMD's first mover advantage; Sown doubt in the minds of any corporate buyers who were going to evaluate AMD64 because, "It was something Intel couldn't do, and it looked interesting."

[Budfred]

So in other words, the review is a garbled diatribe by a reviewer trying to attract attention.....

I prefer AMD and I am currently on a P4....

[Paul Komski]

I prefer AMD and I am currently on a P4.... Why?

[Abbadon]

hmmmm, tom seems to want to make amends (http://www20.tomshardware.com/column/20040220/index.html) of some kind...

[Budfred]

Paul,

Why?

Because the P4 is the fastest chip in the house and I don't think either of them is particularly superior once you pay for them. AMD costs less and I kind like rooting for the underdog, but I will use whichever one is available and gives me the best performance among the options I have available.... Just a comment to reinforce a number of earlier similar comments...

[Paul Komski]

Thanks for the clarification.

"Fastest chip in the house" - depends on what one means. Many P3s have faster GHz than P4s, but the faster FSB on the P4s archictecture makes them superior; similar to some of the comparisons made between AMD and Intel.

[Budfred]

Fastest chip in the house means that I have a P4 at 1.3 Ghz vs. an AMD at 700 Mhz. My laptop doesn't count because it belongs to my work and the old Celeron in the other room doesn't work. This makes the P4 the fastest chip in the house....:D

[Steve]

Many P3s have faster GHz than P4s

Really? I'm kind of a fan of the P3. Can you steer me to the P3's that have faster GHz than P4's? :)

[jabarnutcase]

If we're talking just the clock speed, I believe they made a P3 up to 1.4ghz, whereas my "early model" P4 is only a 1.3 Ghz.

Here (http://www.intel.com/design/pentiumiii/datashts/249657.htm) and Here (http://www.intel.com/design/pentium4/datashts/249198.htm)

That what you meant? :)

[Paul Komski]

Well, for example:-

Intel lists P3's with core speeds of 450 MHz-1.33 GHz at http://www.intel.com/intelinside/weblinks/english/p3p.htm

... and lists P4's with core speeds of 400 MHz-1.8 GHz at http://www.intel.com/intelinside/weblinks/english/p4p.htm

So there is huge overlap in the core speeds of these CPUs. The point is that (as with AMD chips) the core speed measured in Hz isn't everything and some P4's with a slower core speed will work better and, de facto, faster than some P3's that actually have a faster core speed. This is often simply because of a faster FSB but also for other architectural reasons.

We all know that AMDs are given a rating that compares them to intel chips even though this doesnt represent their own core speeds. Perhaps Intel should, or do, do something similar.

PS LOL - Hadn't noticed your post Jaba'.

[Steve]

Paul, your links don't work for me. P4@400MHz? :rolleyes: I thought there was something I missed on the P3. The slowest P4 I can find is 1.8GHz.

I just thought there might be something I missed reguarding P3's. I like to use them in low priced systems instead of the Celeron.

Oh well...:)

[malcore]

The very first Pentium 4 chip was rated at 1.30 GHz on a 400MHz fsb. The last Pentium 3 was 1.4 GHz. There was never a P4 made with a clock speed below this. Not much of an overlap.

[Steve]

Thanks Malcore, that's what I thought. ;)

[jabarnutcase]

Pauls Links work for me if I hold down my ctrl key (disable my popup blocker) :D

And yes, my post and links above agree with malcore. Think that about covers it all. ;)

(Snuck in there just before me Steve) :)

[malcore]

Hehe...

To get back to the original thread... I never cared much for THG, much better and more thorough hardware sites out there...in my opinion.


Edit- And if my opinion matters......



INTEL RULES!!!!!


Edit2.......and AMD ROCKS!!!!;) :p :D

[jabarnutcase]

Yep! ;)

[Steve]

Heh heh...you guys crack me up....:D

[Abbadon]

Originally posted by malcore
I never cared much for THG, much better and more thorough hardware sites out there...in my opinion

Care to throw us some links? I've been using thg quiete a bit, and between the heaps and heaps of hardware sites, it's not always easy to spot the good ones.

I've always liked overclockers.com by the way. Offer some nice insights in technology-development.

[pentachris]

I like THG. A lot.

Some other good sites, though, are www.anandtech.com and http://www.arstechnica.com.

[Paul Komski]

Sorry folks - my brain's obviously badly out of gear.

Bit deluded from reading this sort of stuff. (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=3703)

PS BTW Here's another epinion (http://www.epinions.com/content_2197725316) (even if dated) on AMD/P3/P4