Nice detective work! They should definitely have known better than to try to pull something like this. I want to see 3rd party reviews... NOW! :) _____________________________________ Julian Zottl CTO, Radiant Network Technology, LLC Getting ahead in the tech sector isn't about kissing butt ... you gotta sniff the right packets
---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Chris Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: The Hardware List <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 15:19:13 -0600 >Not denouncing their benchmarks entirely - I believe Intel's benchmarks of >their own chip are valid, and I think they have a winner on their hands. > >But someone evaluating them raises some real questions about the comparison: > >http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2006/03/if-only-they-had-time-machine.html > >You'll notice that the image I am referring to on Anandtech's website (the >bios image) states that the AMD processor is "unknown" which makes me >believe that the bios they are running is outdated. So, I did a bit of >digging and low and behold, the DFI bios version "D49C-32" they are running >is from 10/11/05. There has been 1 major revision with major fixes that >include: > >Set Cool 'n' Quiet Default to Disabled > >- With Cool & Quiet enabled, AMD processors will throttle in order to save >power and bring their thermal load down. This means the processor could be >running as low as 800MHz in certain programs - no matter what the program >is. In theory Cool & Quiet is supposed to throttle up to maximum in games >but this is not always the case. No enthusiast PC goes out with Cool & Quiet >enabled unless it's a fanless machine or media center. > >Add Support for AMD Athlon 64 FX60 CPU > >- According to DFI the FX-60 will not operate correctly without this bios >update. Without official support for the FX-60 CPU I'm not sure what we're >comparing against here. > >Fix Memory Timings 2-1-1-1-1 and 4-1-1 Mode Wrong & Fix Read Preamble Table >Error. > >- Memory latency can make a massive difference in performance. If the >latency was not running at the correct latency we can see a pretty big >difference in all kinds of performance. Anandtech stated "The AMD system >used 1GB of DDR400 running at 2-2-2/1T timings." Apparently this isn't the >case, but they would not be able to tell without having the platform in >house. > >Fix Fill 3114 SVID&SSID under Cross fire mode. >- More apparent performance issues under Crossfire mode. > >Next, when you take a future Intel chipset and compare it to a chipset that >no enthusiast supports (RD480) with an outdated bios it's like taking a >Ferrari and putting it on Bias-Ply tires. It's just not a good way to show >off a "new" technology. > >If we go and check out the numbers on Anandtech we'll see the Unreal >Tournament 2004 benchmark showing 160fps on the unknown AMD X2 processor >while the Intel Conroe at 2.66GHz came in significantly higher at 191fps. > >Though this isn't exactly conclusive, if you go back and re-read some old >FX-57 reviews on Tom's Hardware you'll see a benchmark for the same game set >at the same resolution (and the same color depth), the FX-57 running at >2.8GHz scored 183.4fps. The thing is it's using an Nvidia Geforce 6800 GT >which seems to me that there are many variables here when it comes to >benchmarking. Perhaps it's somewhere locked in the settings, but I won't >know until I sit down and compare our own benchmarks with consistant >settings. Note that a single core Athlon 64 4000 achieved a better score in >the benchmark run by Tom (160.5fps) than the one provided by Intel (160.4) >at IDF. Like I said, I don't view this as conclusive, but it shows that >there are variances depending on how the benchmark is setup. Here is a link >to Tom's review. > >
