My setup: Amd64 3000+...seems to be going o.k...boring so solly...

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 22:09:31 -0500, "Jason Cothran"
wrote:


"Van Souza" wrote in message
news:Ygs6c.19667$Nj.15701@fed1read01...
| Tom's Hardware site is being criticized as having become very pro Intel
| for some reason.

It's simple Intel sponsorship. I have quit even going by that site for intel
or AMD reviews. Reviews of either have become a farce to read at Tom's
Hardware anymore. Thankfully there are 100's of other sites that give us the
real, unbiased story on the two frequently so less informed buyers can
properly research an item.



Yeah, Tom probably is a victim of success. His reviews are all over
the place these days. Some aren't bad, but there's a lot of garbage.

There's lots of bad reviews at other sites too though, bailed on a few
today in fact. The big X button in the corner works great.

hello again.
i read-up on the settings for the ram and used cpu-z to view current
and default settings, then changed to 4-4-7 2.5cl and set manual at
200mhz
and voltage 2.6v-it booted and stayed at 200=400mhz with just the tiny
bootup beep and ran very stable but when booting up today there was one
long beep and no boot just more beeps every now and then,i could not cold
reset nor hard rest, i had to power down and remover battery to clear
cmos
and reboot with default settings and all went well but still at 333mhz
settings, i re-configured bios at above settings and there was one long
beep and then a small normal beep but the thing booted, does anyone know
whats going on or do i have to keep it on 24/7/365.
the default setting for the kingmax pc3500 is 2.6v but giga-byte sets it
at 2.5v default and 333 instead of 400 but kingmax is backward compat at
333 and 400 but is 433. if set to 333 and 2.5v all is well but i want it
at 2.6v and 200/400 as that is what it should be and it will not boot at
200/400 and 2.5v 4-4-7 only 2.6v 4-4-7 2.5cl...
set at 4-4-8 2.5cl-2.6v at 200mhz which is what i read as the default of
the kingmax pc3500 at 200mhz it does not want to boot either.
all because i tested my mates grfx card out all was well before then at
200/400 without mucking about in the bios.
sorry this is long but i have to explain.
phil.

"Ed Light" wrote in message
news:VIs6c.9221$Bg.5893@fed1read03...

"Van Souza" wrote in message
news:Ygs6c.19667$Nj.15701@fed1read01...
Tom's Hardware site is being criticized as having become very pro Intel
for some reason. I can not comment one way or another but the good
folks at Anandtech.com (forums) who use AMD are very upset with him/his
site.

I've seen that before but never understood it. It has always looked to me
like Tom's just tests them and calls them as they are. If AMD is ahead, he
says so.

--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

He didnt say so during is first A64 or Opterion review however. In fact it
was their suggestion that users stick with the p4 cause it wins most of the
benchmarks they put it through (even tho out of like 12 sites there were
only 2 that put intel ahead)

"rstlne" wrote

about Tom's Hardware downing AMD.

He didnt say so during is first A64 or Opterion review however. In fact
it
was their suggestion that users stick with the p4 cause it wins most of
the
benchmarks they put it through (even tho out of like 12 sites there were
only 2 that put intel ahead)

The latest:

"In comparison with AMD's Athon64 3400+, the new Prescott is able to score
with HyperThreading optimized and audio or video encoding applications. If
that is your primary application, the chip definitely offers great
performance for the buck. When it comes to games or file compression, AMD's
Athlon64 still is the better choice."

The previous to the above:

"The Athlon64 FX clearly beats its archrival's processors in most of our
benchmarks. The Intel processors all collect points, in some cases
dramatically, in speed-sensitive applications such as rendering or audio and
video compression, and with applications optimized for HyperThreading.
However, as soon as 3D applications and games are run, FX steamrolls ahead.
That must be annoying for Intel, since the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition is
targeted for these applications.

"Compared to $999 for the 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, the $733 price
tag for the Athlon64 FX-53, represents a great value, especially in
consideration of the performance differences between the two processors.
Indeed, the FX is a whopping 35% cheaper than the P4 Extreme Edition. The
processor supports the AMD-backed Cool & Quiet to reduce dissipation and fan
noise during idle or partial-load phases, and, together with the Service
Pack 2 for WindowsXP, offers more security. Overclocking is built-in.

"Neither platform is really likely to stand the test of time: while Intel
will replace Socket 478 with Socket 775, AMD will phase out Socket 940 in
favor of Socket 939 in the next quarter, which will be able to accommodate
both the Athlon64 and the faster FX. Nevertheless would-be purchasers of an
FX system shouldn't be left out in the cold: AMD's grand plan envisages even
faster processors for Socket 940, too, while Intel plans an upgrade to LGA
775 from 3.6 GHz.

"Regardless of these factors, we see arguments why power users should wait
for the new AMD platform: on the one hand, the HyperTransport protocol will
be stepped up to 1 GBs, upstream and downstream, and so promise even more
performance. On the other hand, upcoming chipsets such as nVIDIA's nForce3
250 Gb will offer interesting features such as Gigabit Ethernet with
integrated Firewall function and a Serial ATA controller; VIA's K8T890 will
appear with PCI Express support in the third quarter. "

--

So, I don't think he's biased toward Intel.

--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Van Souza wrote:

Tom's Hardware site is being criticized as having become very pro Intel
for some reason. I can not comment one way or another but the good
folks at Anandtech.com (forums) who use AMD are very upset with him/his
site.

Tell us something *new*...


I wish I could just give you some numbers to make you happy but my AMD64
3200+ came inside of an eMachine that I got at BestBuy. AIDA32 says
that it is performing to the specs on the box, so I am happy. However
the bios offers no and I do mean no opportunity to be able to change
much of anything at all.

That saddens me a bit but boy do I love this unit. Thanks...

Hi, you got a good system probably cheap but with no upgrade path. Branded
computers are usually not very upgradeable or overclockable. Better to build
your next system. There are instruction guides all over the internet, we can
send you some.

www.lynncomp.com

"Flint" wrote in message
...
Van Souza wrote:

Tom's Hardware site is being criticized as having become very pro Intel
for some reason. I can not comment one way or another but the good folks
at Anandtech.com (forums) who use AMD are very upset with him/his site.

Tell us something *new*...


I wish I could just give you some numbers to make you happy but my AMD64
3200+ came inside of an eMachine that I got at BestBuy. AIDA32 says that
it is performing to the specs on the box, so I am happy. However the bios
offers no and I do mean no opportunity to be able to change much of
anything at all.

That saddens me a bit but boy do I love this unit. Thanks...

Flint wrote:
Van Souza wrote:

Tom's Hardware site is being criticized as having become very pro
Intel for some reason. I can not comment one way or another but the
good folks at Anandtech.com (forums) who use AMD are very upset with
him/his site.


Tell us something *new*...

So when Toms hardware says the X2 beats the Pentium-D hands down, then
it *MUST* be a very good CPU!!!!

See http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/index.html