Tom's Guide > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > A better A64 review?

A better A64 review?

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - A better A64 review?

TomsGuide.com: Over 800,000 questions and answers to address all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Ask the community Add a reply
Word :    Username :           
 
speeduk   09-23-2003 at 08:31:44 PM

Well every review I see has different results with similar hardware. <A HREF="http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1469" target="_new"> Heres </A> another review, showing the standard 3200 A64 (not the FX) getting over 20k in 3dmark 2001 with a 9800pro.....

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1284380" target="_new"> 3D-03 </A>
<font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)

Add a reply
Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.
Crashman   09-23-2003 at 11:43:19 PM
- 0 +

OMG! Not PC-Stats!

d00d, I was just pointing out a few weeks ago how this "review" site is nothing more than a paid advertisement for the products they review. EVERY piece of hardware is the best. When they review a 9800 Pro, it's the best, but then when they review a 5900 Ultra, it's also the best!

In my complaint I pointed out that one of their 5900 Ultra reviews compared the card to a 9800 Pro with AA and AF turned off, but then compared the card only to itself with those features turned on. Why did they do that?

Basically it comes down to withholding loosing benchmarks and showing only winning benchmarks, that way they can promote the product as being the best without lying, simply by telling only half the truth.

Why do they do this? To promote the product they are reviewing.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

Reply to Crashman
Crashman   09-24-2003 at 12:42:21 AM
- 0 +

Been reading the reviews, not too bad, but why did they use the slowest 875 board, just to "proove" they were fair enough to use "an" 875 board?

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

Reply to Crashman
rain_king_uk   09-24-2003 at 12:44:09 AM
- 0 +

I've read no fewer than 6 different reviews of the A64 and P4EE, no other sites I've seen come out with such favourable results for the P4 as THG. Is THG really right and everyone else wrong?

Reply to rain_king_uk
pjordan   09-24-2003 at 03:20:31 AM
- 0 +

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com</A>
They have a review and they like the Athlon 64. What's up?

Reply to pjordan
Ask the community Add a reply
Tom's Guide > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > A better A64 review?
Go to:

There are 10 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Forum map
Bestofmedia Forum ©
2000-2009 Bestofmedia Group
Page generated in 0.875 seconds
Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel
Google ads