THG FINAL stress test update...

[AnandThenMan]

...and the conclusion? THG is basically a haven for babbling bullsh*t. Look at these gems:

Later, we had to replace the motherboard in the Intel system with one based on the Intel 955X chipset, which also meant that SLI operation was no longer possible. In order to make the test fair, we also removed the SLI configuration from the AMD system.

FAIR? That's hardly fair. If it was an auto race, then the car that was running faster, cooler, and far ahead would be sidelined while the broken auto could be repaired and then the race would be restarted! Utter bullsh*t.

When multiple applications are running, the clear conclusion is that the Intel Pentium 840 Extreme Edition is superior to the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+.

Here we go again. The only clear conclusion than anyone with half a brain reached is THG is incapable of doing any kind of testing that is consistent and makes any sense at all. Stats changed for no reason, were reset without any explanation, game tests ran faster with a single card then with one in SLI. Who the hell knows what really went on. The halfbrains at THG sure as hell don't.

However, in exchange, the user does gain the benefit of stability - our Intel system ran for 14 days without a problem. The AMD system ran smoothly from the start, which leads us to conclude that the nForce SLI basis is stable with the AMD platform. The only downside was that after long periods of operation, the AMD machine wouldn't shut down via software.

IDIOTIC STATMENT ALERT. The system was not shutting down due to some problem with Windows. ZERO to do with AMD. This is a hardware stress test not an issue finding mission on Windows.

With the AMD platform you've only got one option, which fortunately is stable: to combine the AMD platform with a motherboard based on NVIDIA's nForce4 SLI chipset.

WHAT? Only one option? Based on what? They didn't TEST WITH ANY OTHER OPTIONS. So how do they know? Are these people playing with a full deck here? And since for most of the test the SLI option was not even utilized it makes the statement even more idiotic.

With no load on the systems, you can already see the difference between the Intel and the AMD platforms - the Intel system uses 13% more power than AMD. This increases to 30% when both systems are running under a full load. The table also shows you what this all amounts to per year for each system: there's a difference of $54 when both systems are running round the clock under a full load. Just think about how smaller companies might easily install 100 systems, and what a difference the extra $5,400 would make!

and then they state...

So, what to buy when you need a top system for a nice sum? For business use, the Intel system should be the better choice, especially in view of its availability as well as the already existing service from Intel partners and system vendors.

so let me get this straight. Even though the Intel system will cost far more to run, it is still a better option for business? And what are they talking about when they say "especially in view of its availability" ?? What does that mean? So now AMD systems can't be recommended because they are not readily available like Intel? WTF. THG has proven beyond all doubt that they are a bunch of lackluster, pathetic lamers that has nearly zero hardware knowledge and less common sense than a 5 year old.

*shakes head*

 

[MobiusPizza]

quote:
Later, we had to replace the motherboard in the Intel system with one based on the Intel 955X chipset, which also meant that SLI operation was no longer possible. In order to make the test fair, we also removed the SLI configuration from the AMD system.



FAIR? That's hardly fair. If it was an auto race, then the car that was running faster, cooler, and far ahead would be sidelined while the broken auto could be repaired and then the race would be restarted! Utter bullsh*t.

They had to do that though cause there will be more people saying that it's unfair cause AMD has 2 graphic cards.
Also consider the fact that SLI didn't work on Intel was nVidia's chipset's problem, not Intel's

 

[Lonyo]

The colclusion is BS.
Hey, lets buy 100 systems which are hotter, less stable and use more power, because they're Intel!
Or we could probably buy 102~103 AMD systems (a few more because they'd save a load of money on power), and get faster, cooler, more stable machines.

 

[Viditor]

It's THG...take a deep breath, sadly shake your head and move on...sigh...

 

[ProviaFan]

The idiots still don't realize that it was the Windows scheduler that gave the P4XE such an "advantage" with 4 thead execution, rather than the HT itself. :roll:

 

[Capt Caveman]

So, what to buy when you need a top system for a nice sum? For business use, the Intel system should be the better choice, especially in view of its availability as well as the already existing service from Intel partners and system vendors.

[/quote]

Opterons are a different story but as an IS manager, this is completely true. You can't buy a X2 system from Dell, HP or IBM currently. Are you going to build them yourself or buy them from some niche company like Velocity Micro? Then support?

Yes, the power cost will be higher. But for a business, if plan to purchase a dual-core desktop/workstation, Intel is really your only option.

 

[classy]

That conclusion is pretty poor. For starters, when all four apps were running the AMD led in 2 of them and was within the ballpark on a third, and for what ever reason it just didn't do anything with the Divx. But when HT was disabled the AMD with all four apps running won all four. So from his own results I don't see how the Intel is a clear choice when running multiple apps. But then on last page he says the AMD wins in terms of performance per watt. What kind of dumb@ss statement is that. I also find it strange the AMD wouldn't shutoff considering it ran perfectly from the jump for 18 days straight. Any half moron with half a brain can look at see the AMD is just a superior chip. That doesn't mean the Intel is garbage because its a decent chip as well with some nice features on the platform, but its not a better performer than the AMD, not as stable, and the platform is a little more expensive overall. Both are flatout expensive, but the AMD is better, but the I wouldn't trash a person if they bought Intel either. I really like the different storage options available with Intel. But the AMD 939 has got all kinds of upgrade options. But if I truly wanted to build the best overall system barring price the AMD is the clear cut choice.

 

[justly]

Originally posted by: AnandThenMan
...and the conclusion? THG is basically a haven for babbling bullsh*t. Look at these gems:
...

I know you can find more than this (I know I did).

 

[Jeff7181]

That's exactly what I don't understand... they went through hell getting the Intel rig to perform reliably. They had a tech from Intel come and try to sort things out. Meanwhile the AMD system just does what it's supposed to be doing. How can anyone recommend something like that if there's no incentive for them to do so?

And what's the big mystery behind the test with 4 threads? Windows sucks at preemptive multitasking. Of course a processor that's only capable of running two threads simultaneously won't run more than two threads simultaneously. What kind of moron would think otherwise? I guess Tom. But that begs the question, if the Intel processor is capable of running 4 threads (because of HT), and the AMD processor is capable of running 2... why run 4? Why not 6? Or 8? Oh... nevermind... I figured it out... Intel wouldn't look any better than AMD if they did and Tom's wallet wouldn't get any heavier.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

So, what to buy when you need a top system for a nice sum? For business use, the Intel system should be the better choice, especially in view of its availability as well as the already existing service from Intel partners and system vendors.

Opterons are a different story but as an IS manager, this is completely true. You can't buy a X2 system from Dell, HP or IBM currently. Are you going to build them yourself or buy them from some niche company like Velocity Micro? Then support?

Yes, the power cost will be higher. But for a business, if plan to purchase a dual-core desktop/workstation, Intel is really your only option.
[/quote]

Sad but true. Unfortunately most businesses value convenience and availability over performance. Performance is not an issue with the majority of business desktops these days, a P4 2.8 ghz will provide more computing power than most users will use.

However I think deploying these new dual core Pentiums in a business environment would be a bad move. These things are poorly designed and a problem waiting to happen. If a few of our folks really needs dual core computing power I would go the extra mile and build or buy X2's and support them internally, everybody else gets IBM 2.8's on the service plan

 

[n7]

Hilarious.

What a fvcking joke THG is :roll:

 

[Duvie]

Bottom line...no spin...

Initial test (on NF boards before crashes...)

P XE840 w/ HT vs X2 4800+
AMD won 3 out of 4 tests and was gaining in all of those 3.....

___________________________________________________________

Restart of test using i955

P XE840 w/ HT vs X2 4800+
AMD won 3 out of 4 tests but with donwtime for Intel if one just looked at what were the gains or changes after the restart AMD and INtel each clearly one one but the other 2 test were close...Intels chaotic RANDOMNESS had times it was making ground in the farcry to only drop and start making it up in CD encoding. It would be conceiveable both these amrks would have stayed close with likely each winning one over a prolonged period....

_________________________________________________________

Restart with HT off

P XE840 w/ HT off vs X2 4800+

AMD won all 4 and was gaining in all four over the course of the days of the test.....

___________________________________________________________________

Restart and focusing on single test....

P XE 840 w/ HT vs X2 4800+

AMD wins all four





the real surprise is those monkey fvcks did not test 2 thread or 3 thread test...It was 4 threads to benfit the HT of the XE or the single thread test which didn't vary from what WE ALREADY KNEW from reading the reviews from the past months....



BOTTOM LINE

STRESS TEST WINNER = AMD (unequivicably) one board, first try....160+ hours of uptime....

4 THREAD PERFORMANCE TEST WITH 840 w/ HT = TIE (appears to be only strength of the INtel chip..." an abnormal workload test") Test 5 threads or more and we will see if it holds true...that ought to really fvck with HT and its brand of windows thread scheduling...


4 THREAD PERFORMANCE TEST WITH 840 w/o HT = AMD (clear victor) Big sign INtel screwed up by not making them all have HT

1 THREAD PERFORMANCE TEST WITH 840 w/ HT = AMD (clear victor)




Question is why did INtel not include HT on its lower chips??? Also question why does the INtel P D 840 have the same TDP as the XE 840...Common logic and truth say it wont and that is why Intel exceeds the TDP in their white papers with cpu consumption...

The fact is an 820 likely would have had a higher then 115w rating and subsequently if the XE was more accurate it would be in the 145+ range at least (cpu consumption only)

 

[theMan]

it does seem like the intel would be better for business, because the intel is the only one that will be available in premade computers. unless amd suddenly gets a contract with someone. so, the only way a business could get an X2 is if they built all of their computers which costs a lot more than just buying from dell.

 

[Hacp]

Well, it does seem that intel's bottom line dual core costs 250 and AMD's bottom line dual core costs 600(Right now at least). And dell and other manufactuers can probably offer discounts to buisinesses who buy mass amounts of intel dual cores, while AMD has to rely on the enthusist market to buy up their dual cores because the costs of making AMD dual cores are much higher than intel's costs.

 

[rpmcrash]

Originally posted by: theman
it does seem like the intel would be better for business, because the intel is the only one that will be available in premade computers. unless amd suddenly gets a contract with someone. so, the only way a business could get an X2 is if they built all of their computers which costs a lot more than just buying from dell.

hmm, What would it cost to keep a Dell service guy on the payroll.
To keep my auotocads running and the down time would kill me.
Then what send the C.N.C GUYS HOME. because computers are down no thanks.
Let see tom do some benches on a Dell. He will F--K that up to.

 

[Duvie]

Actaully 260 for the 820 is it appears the demand for them is sooo low etailers and retailers are not gouging ppl...If AMDs were sold where we were told they would be

530's for a 4200's was supposed to be retail so and oem should have been low 500....4400+ was supposed to be 580's so its oem should have been 550's (as I believe trigerdirect sold this intila shipment they got)


<<while AMD has to rely on the enthusist market to buy up their dual cores because the costs of making AMD dual cores are much higher than intel's costs.>>

Cause frankly hose are the users who really need it...average users buy celerons...

 

[fatty4ksu]

A great review by THG!

To THG! :thumbsup:

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
A great review by THG!

To THG! :thumbsup:

Spoken like a true troll.

 

[SrGuapo]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
A great review by THG!

To THG! :thumbsup:

sigh...

 

[yacoub]

Only a retard is going to suggest the Intel system is the better option for businesses to run when the most important thing to businesses - stability/reliability - was the least proven on the Intel platform. Remind me again how many parts and pieces they had to keep switching in and out before they got the system up and running (kinda) stable? No IT department would put up with such a hairy piece of crap. They would buy the solution that's essentially stable out of the box, which in this case was clearly the AMD system. It performed just as well and cost less - added bonuses to its stability.

So the conclusion is that Tom is a retard.

 

[MobiusPizza]

Yeah I agree that they should not even mentioned Intel as recommendation based on the conclusion that AMD won 4 tests out of 4, and was more stable.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

sad so many ppl are even discussing the crap THG sometimes produces. THG is more or less yellow press to me. I dont take everything they say and do for serios.
On the other hand Iam not of the opinion that THG is a "Pro-Intel" website. They once was, but within the last 2 years they changed alot and would allways criticize Intels CPU regarding weaknesses like power consumption etc. I dont think they are Intel biased.

 

[theMan]

yeah, but its not a question of intel not being stable. dell will make a stable computer. and they wont use the X2. they will use intel, and thats what the businesses are going to buy.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: yacoub
Only a retard is going to suggest the Intel system is the better option for businesses to run when the most important thing to businesses - stability/reliability - was the least proven on the Intel platform. Remind me again how many parts and pieces they had to keep switching in and out before they got the system up and running (kinda) stable? No IT department would put up with such a hairy piece of crap. They would buy the solution that's essentially stable out of the box, which in this case was clearly the AMD system. It performed just as well and cost less - added bonuses to its stability.

So the conclusion is that Tom is a retard.

My only guess is that you work at home, in school or not involved in IT in a business setting. Most companies buy particular models from particular vendors. i.e. IBM, HP, Dell They do this b/c of the synergies of supporting a smaller number of models from a reputable vendor, product and support contract pricing. None of these companies sell X2's out of the box. And businesses aren't going to be buying X2 out of the box systems from Alienware or Velocity Micro.

Just like how everyone is critizing the testing done by THG, businesses aren't going to look at it either. It's been widely known that the Nvidia nF4 Intel chipset isn't mature and no business is going to use it. From reading other forums, folks don't seem to have these problems w/ their Dell Pentium 840EE systems or one's using the Intel chipset motherboards.

Unless you're a tiny company that would consider building their own X2 systems, the X2 isn't an option yet in the business world.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Well, it does seem that intel's bottom line dual core costs 250 and AMD's bottom line dual core costs 600(Right now at least). And dell and other manufactuers can probably offer discounts to buisinesses who buy mass amounts of intel dual cores, while AMD has to rely on the enthusist market to buy up their dual cores because the costs of making AMD dual cores are much higher than intel's costs.

I don't think AMD dual cores cost more, rather that Intel has far more money and production capacity and can afford to price them low. AMD's dual cores have a smaller die size, so unless they have a bad yield rate, they concievably cost less.