This gets even more laughable everytime they do a CPU comparison. This one happens to be a memory article, so it's even more comical. http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20040119/index-04.html First notice that the intel setup gets 4x256Mb DIMMs at 2-2-2-5, whereas they stick the AMD A64 and FX-51 at 2-3-2-5 and are running both the A64 & FX-51 with 512Mb modules why not 2x256 or 3x256 on the A64?? Then why is ras to cas, the most important memory timing on the A64 & FX-51 at "3" Fair review? Quote from XtremeSystems: "come-the-hell on Tom ya can run 5ghz with a P4 but cant get 2-2-2-5 out of AMD 'LMAO' "
lmao, wot a load of crap, everything i read from their makes me think their even crappier then i previously thought, now thats getting very hard to do. 'doc
It's just so wrong, all they had to do was run 2 sticks of 256 in each machine. But no, that would be a fair comparison.
Oh dear oh dear.... And a mate still insists tom is unbiased and the best place for reviews on the net......
i never go there anymore to read there review i looked at a review on there keyboards says it was totaly crap ect ect i got the keyboard it worked great! *untill a class of cocoa cola went all over it! :'(
Did they not also say memory timings arent everything.... Didnt yodas test show they make quite a bit of difference to benchies......
The title of this thread it 100% correct as far as I am concerned. THG should not be allowed to conduct reviews if they can't properly setup a equal test system.
Well the rumour has it they are Intel's Marketing department THG's germany offices are located in the same building as Intel's germany HQ edit: also why have they used the MSI boards? If they're going to use the K8T800, where is the Asus K8V and SK8V? Also notice the Intel system uses a beta bios
Has anyone emailed them questioning their testing methods? Maybe intel should be contacted to get their official reaction on their new PR dept.....
I remember when I pwned tom. I did my Computer Repair project on Video Cards, and the Best out, Best for buck, and so forth. Since im not a big wig in the computing industry I went to various unbaised site recording their info (not stealing I put the sites in my report) I found 5 different Nvidia cards but only the regular ATI cards were tested on the ones I went to(the sites). Anyways, I go over to toms hardware some n00bies said it was the best site for computer reviews. I go there after I have most of my stuff, I was comparing ATI 8500 to the Geforce 4 Ti4600, the comparable cards at the time. I found that the Geforce held its ground much better and was the better card at the time. I looked on toms site it was there also but by way more. Turns out he was running the ATI on 256MB.. while the nVIDIA ran at 512MB(RAM) To top it off, I forget what the processor at the time was, but I believe it was like a 1800xp in the ATI and a 1900xp in the Nvidia. I couldn't believe it at all. Tom needs to be beat with every piece of mis judged and reviewed hardware he has ever reviewed. guy 1: Hey is the the line to take a whack at tom? guy 2: Yeah but the lines back there. *points 2 blocks down* guy 1:Man long line is it worth the wait? guy 2:Totally just ask ATI or AMD they have went 5 times already and loved every minute of it.. guy 1: COOL!
Are they correct that the Athlon 64 FX cannot have its memory timings changed???? Sounds odd to me, but then again I haven't kept up to date on the A64. If this isn't true, Toms should have a disclaimer somewhere saying this is totally unreliable information. It confuses newbies like myself. Also, someone with an A64 FX on here should take a screen shot of their memory timings and email it to Tom and say something like, "I may not be quite as 'smart' as the people working for you, or have quite the budget, but I did manage to change memory timings." Would be kinda funny.
LMAO excuses excuses excuses! if they couldn't alter ram timing on one CPU, they should have changed ALL the others to exactly the same timings. and if one board didn't support 4dimms, they should have put 2x512 in ALL of the boards! lmao Tom's hardware are probably intel workers..
the AMD's fastest configuration is 2x256 for both the A64 and the FX, also AMD's live on tight timings more so than Intel based systems., why did they have to use 1gb of memory? It's certainly not required, if you look at the ORB for 3DMark 2001SE, you will find that even with Intel rigs, the top scorers are using 2x256Mb memory modules in dual channel, so why not use 2x256 for their benchmarks? Ok, it's toms hardware, it explains my confusion
Wow from what I've heard and read about tomshardware... their site is crap... Next time I go for reviews, I'll have to make sure that they're using EXACTLY the same system to test (I usually only care about video card benchmarks) It's pretty pathetic that there are few sites where one can get an unbiased review or two... Anyone feel like listing one?
These days, just about the ONLY large tech site with reviews you can trust, is anandtech. I have not read a bad review from them yet, they are well written, fair, and aren't afraid to criticise products where criticism is due. HardOCP and THG are probably the worst, and it probably comes from being so large that there is pressure on them to keep churning out reviews. But that's no good if they don't spend enough time on them. 8-ball
We used the fastest-possible memory configuration for each platform. For the Pentium 4 and Pentium 4 Extreme Edition on the Asus P4C800-E (Intel 875P), we used four 256 MB DIMMs from Corsair because they allowed us to set the fastest-possible timings of CL2.0-2-2-5. This was not possible with two 512 MB DIMMs because the fastest ones we could find - also from Corsair - supported "a mere" CL2.0-3-2-6. "mere" is wrong
