Disagreement between Tom & Anand?

[Dputiger]

I'm curious--does anyone else wonder why Tomshardware expressed disapointment in the 760MP, while AnandTech enthusiastically recommended it?

Not that two hardware sites can't have two different opinions, of course--but I"m used to seeing a fair amount of agreement at the high end of the tech-sites--what do you all think about this?

[Barney]

I serously doubt Tom knows his stuff. You should see a topic about it soon...

[Mntsnow]

I serously doubt Tom knows his stuff

HUH?? Tom was and still is one of the better reviewers in my book. He was one of the first TOP quality hardware review sites on the net and still ranks right up there. Maybe Tom has a bone to pick to AMD's performance? Time will tell

[NDC]

Barney stop talking to Fred! http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif


Hey Dputiger, do you have the link to that review by Tom. I'd like to do some reading on it. Thanks! http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 06-11-2001).]

[RobRich]

Try this anaology, I could give two people a Ferrari and McLaren for testing. Each performs excellently, but it is likely each person will find specific advantages/disavantages to each card. What one person likes, does not especially mean that everyone likes it as well.

For example, reference some of my findings regarding the P4. For some, it is entirely a waste of money. However, for others, it is the highest performance platform currently available for their specific needs.

Catch ya' later,
Robert Richmond

[Richard_Cranium72]

I've never mentioned it, but I saw an "Allegation" that Tom's did NOT actually review, only conducted copies of other review sites..

A very strong statement,, not from me to be sure.

[SysOpt]

As one of the first (I believe tom's site and sysopt were the two first, don't know which came first) hardware sites, tom knows his stuff. He's been accused of everything under the sun, as have most popular publications. There's no way to know what's truth and what isn't. I've never heard of anything bad being proven about him or his site.

Ultimately, it's up to the reader to decide how much merit a review has. If you tend to agree with how a site has reviewed hardware in the past, and their opinions, then there isn't any reason to believe that they've suddenly gone haywire.

I think it's great that dozens of sites review the same product, use different testing methodologies, and arrive at different conclusions / opinions. It wouldn't be very useful to have only one site review a technology/hardware and one opinion.

[This message has been edited by SysOpt (edited 06-11-2001).]

[NDC]

It wouldn't be very useful to have only one site review a technology/hardware and one opinion.


Yes, that's very true. It's really hard to decide which review to go by. The best thing to do is just read many reviews and follow the majority. That's what reviews are all about, right? So that you can make buying decisions...At least that's what I do before I go out and slam some cash on the counter. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif


[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 06-11-2001).]

[Barney]

Tom's reviews are always easy to read and he always has good comparisons. I remember from the P4 review here that Rob wasn't able to compare 2 systems that are virtually identical but the mobo/cpu. So you can't really compare the results. I figure it's easier for Tom, because his site is more popular so he gets more hardware to review. It's Tom's results on some stuff that sometimes don't seam right.

I am still trying to get some info together before I create the topic, I don't want to make myself a complete fool by saying BS (wouldn't be the first time).

[anavel gato]

I've read the review and a few times I felt that Tom forgot that there is a 500 mhz gap between a dual P-4 system at 1.7 Ghz and a dual Palomino system at 1.2 Ghz. Sure the Athlon is able to beat the P-4 in a few benchmarks and the P-4 will beat the Athlon in the others.

It would have been great to see a comparaison between the two systems at the same clock speed. Say Palomino MP at 1.2 Ghz vs P-4 at 1.2 Ghz (if that was possible). To see clock for clock, which system is better and what a few more Mhz can do.

[Dputiger]

Hmmm. Well first off, here are the appropriate links:

Tomshardware link is here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/mainboard/01q2/010605/index.html

Anandtech here:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1483

Two things: First of all, both Tom AND Anand know their stuff. That's indisputable.

Let me put my confusion this way: If two people took a McLaren and a Ferari out for a test drive, yes, one might prefer the McLaren and the other the Ferrari. However, in BOTH cases, I would expect the reviewer to admit that the other vehicle is a **** fine car.

Now, compare that example to these quotes from each review. First, from Anand:

Three years ago we wouldn't be caught dead recommending an AMD based server solution. Today, we'd be crazy not to do so.

Now, from Tom:

Right now, the release of AMD's new dual-Athlon chipset seems more like a technology demonstration rather than a full-blown product release. We have learned that dual-AthlonMP is performing very well indeed, but as long as AMD doesn't supply AthlonMP at high enough clock speeds, Intel's Xeon solution has a clear performance advantage.

My point is not to say that Tom's is anti-AMD or anything of the sort--I am just suprised that two top-tier review sites came to such different conclusions.

[This message has been edited by Dputiger (edited 06-11-2001).]

[krusty the klown]

OK, having read the quotes, not the full articles (I can't link to Tom's article), I'd imagine the difference stems from different opinions of what makes a 'server'.

Someone considering spending several thousands on a MP Xeon setup, or someone spending $1500 on a dual AMD / dual P3 system... I think Tom seems to be comparing the dual AMD to the 'several thousand' dual Xeon and Anand is comparing it to a 'budget' server/powerful worksataion.

[Hellmund]

They didn't really come to such different conclusions, they both iterised on the small cache but Anandtech didn't emphasis the fact of how the AthlonMP is only shipping at 1ghz and 1.2ghz, tom emphasised on this a bit in his summary. Even though a 1.2ghz AthlonMP will crush a 1.2ghz P4 Xeon, the Xeon is at 1.7ghz and that's one big advantage. Before the first posted Benchmark he mentioned the clock speed gap 'anavel gato'. Basically I enjoy reading both sites articles and comparing. They both really do know what they're talkin about. There's also that Anand used some different benchmarks, In tom's benchmarks the P4 Xeon won won more than %50 of the time. Anand's benchmarks seemed to be in AthlonMP's favour. Oh and I'd say Tom is in no way anti-amd. Hell after that little spectacle with the PIII-1.13ghz you'd think he'd against Intel if anything. He copped a lot of flak and criticism over that and he was right and Intel had to recall those processors.