Both are jokes if you ask me... WTF is a woman going to offer in writings about TECHNOLOGY Vs a man? NOTHING b/c technology is based on FACTS and benchmarks, not any slight of neither male nor female BIAS? If you WANT to hire more women to simply state the facts as the males on this site currently attempt (no offense) then so be it. But this drivel about "women's perspective" on technology is bullocks. Hell most women don't give a crap about tech, aside from shopping for it and it working. That's more than well accepted as social-FACT and not an opinion. If it were not there would be a much larger female audience participating, as nobody forces women to NOT read about technology. They simply CHOOSE NOT to do so in favor of other interests. Stop beating a dead horse... Again where do you see women clamoring on about "we NEED MORE male viewers," you don't b/c frankly they don't give a sh** about male viewership in their associated hobbies. But men ought to care about them? Just stick to the facts and benchmarks and if Sally or Molly or whomever wants to write about it, let them. Geesh...
Alas... A.M.Doomed... You know as I sit and type this banter out, I look over at the machine I'm using to do it with: the FORMER TKO'ing-intel's-ass-CHAMP, Barton Mobile, OC'd a nice +30%(!!!); all I can do is LAUGH at AMD. Resting on their laurels like the Rabbit taking a nap, while the tortoise slowly sneaks by to an insurmountable lead. GET IT? AMD is bunk, and unless there's a literal miracle or MELTDOWN@IntelEvilEmpire.HQ—who cares about slow, uncompetitive (keyword) AMD chips? Any buyer STUPID enough to WASTE money on AMD "just b/c" or out of some blind loyalty, is a fool and another reason why hardware is so overpriced and the market flooded with junk. AMD has it's head in the sand, praying ATI will keep them afloat long enough for a crap-shot return to former CPU glory, until then A.T. need not WASTE time and effort testing bottlenecking *.AMD chips.
Yeah it's slightly biased and meant to be scornful, but then again, wasn't it AMD talking trash about "a whole new x86 redesign," and other FALSE MARKETING ATTEMPTS to MISLEAD REVIEW SITE, esp on BENCHMARKS—You all remember that right??? Nothing further from the truth could have resultant... AMD is Trash and now we're ALL paying through the nose for Intel's vastly superior, regime-price-control gems! THANKS A.M.Dullards
-Ciao!
"Is there any reason why you jump so quickly to the conclusion that we are favoring Intel?"
Intel more or less financed Anandtech in the first years through "ads" and other money.
I know you Johan is not part of that group since you did splendid work at Aces but got no major backer like Intel or you wanted to do unbiased reviews.
Some old things stick like glue and the credibility of Anandtech is not very high among enthusiasts who been along long.
Would you beleive George Bush if he decided to support Iran to become a nuclear country?
"Secondly, Nehalem is not the CPU that is launched today, it is Intel's six-core Dunnington. It is not weird IMHO that we focus on a new launch and delay an already late article a bit more."
The launch press release says Xeon 7400 CPUs can improve performance by almost 50% in systems that make heavy use of virtualization.
AMD has owned the virtualization world for 5 years but 10 minutes after the release of a new core that blows AMD off the lead you guys decided to release the first Virutalization article ever, do I smell a rat?
Your claim that AnandTech doesn't have high credibility amongst enthusiasts should be reworded to "AnandTech doesn't have high credibility amongst the mentally deficient who make up AMDZone".
Leaving your comfort zone is not recommended for anyone, so I agree.
Nevertheless... why are all Benchmarks done with Intel CPUs? I mean, even if the Phenom sucks @ games, it still gets bought and people need comparisons for making educated choices. If you simply leave it out, no one will ever notice how small or big the difference really is.
Same thing goes for GPUs, which seem to magically disappear into thin air if they are only one [sic!] generation older than the one that is tested. Again, you take away from the people the ability to make educated decisions, because they can't compare anything.
Benchmarks of video cards are done with Intel CPU's because you want to make sure you have as fast a CPU as possible so that when you compare GPU's, the results aren't blighted by being CPU bound.
As AMD's best gaming CPU is significantly behind Intel's, that is why.
As for the rest of your comments, no site can be all things to all people, and often you see a range of CPU's from both teams tested anyway.
Have you seen any independent virtualization testing so far that compares the different CPUs? That is because it is pretty hard to get it right and very labor intensive.
When we try out a new way of testing CPUs, it will be always applied to a new launch of CPUs. When I try out MySQL and DB2, it was just a moment that AMD was very strong. So that makes me AMD biased?
When I used an improved version of that when Woodcrest was launched, I must have been Intel biased?
Isn't it much more likely that it is simply matter that the dualcore opteron and Woodcrest were the strongest CPUs when they were launched?
Anyway, just read my blogposts and you'll see that I clearly exposed AMD's strengths in HPC and some server apps.
No, I don't think you are biased at all.
Actually I think you might be the one with the best and most indepth and interesting reviews on the www.
Anandtechs early days is a different story though when they were more or less financed by Intel. I only speculated on the timing of the virualisation review that I thought was funny.
Did you choose to do it yourself or did someone else at Anandtech advise you that it might be interesting to look into virtualisation and it just happens to be at the exact moment Intel smashed AMD in that regard and AMD has owned the v scene for years, only you know.
If you choose to do it and noone suggested it I think it is due to your interest in the techonlogy and the increasing importance it has.
If someone suggested it to you I believe it is someone with some close Intel connections and that contact suggested to him, hey guys, you migtht want to look into virtualisation :)
1.You are extremally unbiased
2.You make excellent unbiased reviews
3.Could not figure something out :)
1/11th of your staff is female, and since you have at least one you are good to go? Fool-proof logic! What percent of your readers are female? Could it be... less than 10%? I'm not saying they correlate.
I actually just looked around for bios. I think that might be the first time I ever looked. "About" had some stuff. Didn't exactly get the feel-goods from it.
FYI IT site is taking a really long time (2 minutes per page) to load. Maybe it's just that I dropped my laptop a few times, but the rest of the site seems zippy.
Givem the asymmetry of memory bandwidth and GPU bandwidth what does Intel have up it's sleeve in terms of main memory bus architecture? We've been hearing that GPU's and CPU's are becoming more integrated but I think the opposite is true. GPU's have ridiculous memory bandwidth that outstrips anything modern CPU's coupled with the old PC main memory architecture have... how are you going to deal with the threat should GPU computing take off? They are away ahead in terms of bandwidth. Or is there something else I am missing here?
Is there any reason why you jump so quickly to the conclusion that we are favoring Intel? If you read the other blogs, we have defending the Barcelona architecture (as it performs well in server benchmarks) where many were simply calling it a disaster just because it doesn't perform well in gaming. Just take a look at the blog posts at it.anandtech.com.
Let us see where this misunderstanding comes from. First of all, our virtualization article is late because we want to make sure we were not unfair to VMware, Microsoft or the Xen vendors. It was an article mostly focused on the hypervisors, not the CPUs. So the article got delayed several times.
Secondly, Nehalem is not the CPU that is launched today, it is Intel's six-core Dunnington. It is not weird IMHO that we focus on a new launch and delay an already late article a bit more.
Is there any reason why you jump so quickly to the conclusion that we are favoring Intel? If you read the other blogs, we have defending the Barcelona architecture (as it performs well in server benchmarks) where many were simply calling it a disaster just because it doesn't perform well in gaming. Just take a look at the blog posts at it.anandtech.com.
Let us see where this misunderstanding comes from. First of all, our virtualization article is late because we want to make sure we were not unfair to VMware, Microsoft or the Xen vendors. It was an article mostly focused on the hypervisors, not the CPUs. So the article got delayed several times.
Secondly, Nehalem is not the CPU that is launched today, it is Intel's six-core Dunnington. It is not weird IMHO that we focus on a new launch and delay an already late article a bit more.
Is there any reason why you jump so quickly to the conclusion that we are favoring Intel? If you read the other blogs, we have defending the Barcelona architecture (as it performs well in server benchmarks) where many were simply calling it a disaster just because it doesn't perform well in gaming. Just take a look at the blog posts at it.anandtech.com.
Let us see where this misunderstanding comes from. First of all, our virtualization article is late because we want to make sure we were not unfair to VMware, Microsoft or the Xen vendors. It was an article mostly focused on the hypervisors, not the CPUs. So the article got delayed several times.
Secondly, Nehalem is not the CPU that is launched today, it is Intel's six-core Dunnington. It is not weird IMHO that we focus on a new launch and delay an already late article a bit more.
Is there any reason why you jump so quickly to the conclusion that we are favoring Intel? If you read the other blogs, we have defending the Barcelona architecture where many were simply calling it a disaster just because it doesn't perform well in gaming. Just take a look at the blog posts at it.anandtech.com.
Let us see where this misunderstanding comes from. First of all, our virtualization article is late because we want to make sure we were not unfair to VMware, Microsoft or the Xen vendors. It was an article mostly focused on the hypervisors, not the CPUs. So the article got delayed several times.
Secondly, Nehalem is not the CPU that is launched today, it is Intel's six-core Dunnington. It is not weird IMHO that we focus on a new launch and delay an already late article a bit more.
Why would women have a different opinion about technology? Maybe that's what the problem is. You're just a human but they're "only women." No wonder they charge us for sex.
Recently I have read multiple articles with say that the CPU voltage and DDR3 SDRAM voltage are synchronous, resulting in rather disappointing memory standards of DDR3-800 and DDR3-1066. I realize that having a triple-channel memory controller may make up for lost bandwidth, but I see no advantage in either performance nor performance per watt to linking the voltage of the RAM and CPU, particularly given the differing voltage tolerance of the parts. So I ask a simple question: why?
What a load of rubbish. You believe a couple posters speculating on a tech forum? Why would they bother sticking a 16 phase power delivery for the processor and a separate 3 phase power delivery for memory if they were to be syncronised?
I've never seen or heard anything to indicate memory voltage and CPU voltage are linked in any way. DDR2 standard is 1.8V and DDR3 standard is 1.5V according to JEDEC. Needless to say, all modern CPUs run at much lower voltages (unless you start heavily overvolting and overclocking). Perhaps you're referring to some other voltage? If you have any links, that would be helpful.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
23 Comments
Back to Article
jones377 - Monday, September 22, 2008 - link
When are you guys posting your Dunnington review, if ever?v12v12 - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
Both are jokes if you ask me... WTF is a woman going to offer in writings about TECHNOLOGY Vs a man? NOTHING b/c technology is based on FACTS and benchmarks, not any slight of neither male nor female BIAS? If you WANT to hire more women to simply state the facts as the males on this site currently attempt (no offense) then so be it. But this drivel about "women's perspective" on technology is bullocks. Hell most women don't give a crap about tech, aside from shopping for it and it working. That's more than well accepted as social-FACT and not an opinion. If it were not there would be a much larger female audience participating, as nobody forces women to NOT read about technology. They simply CHOOSE NOT to do so in favor of other interests. Stop beating a dead horse... Again where do you see women clamoring on about "we NEED MORE male viewers," you don't b/c frankly they don't give a sh** about male viewership in their associated hobbies. But men ought to care about them? Just stick to the facts and benchmarks and if Sally or Molly or whomever wants to write about it, let them. Geesh...Alas... A.M.Doomed... You know as I sit and type this banter out, I look over at the machine I'm using to do it with: the FORMER TKO'ing-intel's-ass-CHAMP, Barton Mobile, OC'd a nice +30%(!!!); all I can do is LAUGH at AMD. Resting on their laurels like the Rabbit taking a nap, while the tortoise slowly sneaks by to an insurmountable lead. GET IT? AMD is bunk, and unless there's a literal miracle or MELTDOWN@IntelEvilEmpire.HQ—who cares about slow, uncompetitive (keyword) AMD chips? Any buyer STUPID enough to WASTE money on AMD "just b/c" or out of some blind loyalty, is a fool and another reason why hardware is so overpriced and the market flooded with junk. AMD has it's head in the sand, praying ATI will keep them afloat long enough for a crap-shot return to former CPU glory, until then A.T. need not WASTE time and effort testing bottlenecking *.AMD chips.
Yeah it's slightly biased and meant to be scornful, but then again, wasn't it AMD talking trash about "a whole new x86 redesign," and other FALSE MARKETING ATTEMPTS to MISLEAD REVIEW SITE, esp on BENCHMARKS—You all remember that right??? Nothing further from the truth could have resultant... AMD is Trash and now we're ALL paying through the nose for Intel's vastly superior, regime-price-control gems! THANKS A.M.Dullards
-Ciao!
erikejw - Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - link
"Is there any reason why you jump so quickly to the conclusion that we are favoring Intel?"Intel more or less financed Anandtech in the first years through "ads" and other money.
I know you Johan is not part of that group since you did splendid work at Aces but got no major backer like Intel or you wanted to do unbiased reviews.
Some old things stick like glue and the credibility of Anandtech is not very high among enthusiasts who been along long.
Would you beleive George Bush if he decided to support Iran to become a nuclear country?
"Secondly, Nehalem is not the CPU that is launched today, it is Intel's six-core Dunnington. It is not weird IMHO that we focus on a new launch and delay an already late article a bit more."
The launch press release says Xeon 7400 CPUs can improve performance by almost 50% in systems that make heavy use of virtualization.
AMD has owned the virtualization world for 5 years but 10 minutes after the release of a new core that blows AMD off the lead you guys decided to release the first Virutalization article ever, do I smell a rat?
Chad Boga - Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - link
Your claim that AnandTech doesn't have high credibility amongst enthusiasts should be reworded to "AnandTech doesn't have high credibility amongst the mentally deficient who make up AMDZone".
Finally - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
Leaving your comfort zone is not recommended for anyone, so I agree.Nevertheless... why are all Benchmarks done with Intel CPUs? I mean, even if the Phenom sucks @ games, it still gets bought and people need comparisons for making educated choices. If you simply leave it out, no one will ever notice how small or big the difference really is.
Same thing goes for GPUs, which seem to magically disappear into thin air if they are only one [sic!] generation older than the one that is tested. Again, you take away from the people the ability to make educated decisions, because they can't compare anything.
Chad Boga - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
Benchmarks of video cards are done with Intel CPU's because you want to make sure you have as fast a CPU as possible so that when you compare GPU's, the results aren't blighted by being CPU bound.As AMD's best gaming CPU is significantly behind Intel's, that is why.
As for the rest of your comments, no site can be all things to all people, and often you see a range of CPU's from both teams tested anyway.
JohanAnandtech - Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - link
Have you seen any independent virtualization testing so far that compares the different CPUs? That is because it is pretty hard to get it right and very labor intensive.When we try out a new way of testing CPUs, it will be always applied to a new launch of CPUs. When I try out MySQL and DB2, it was just a moment that AMD was very strong. So that makes me AMD biased?
When I used an improved version of that when Woodcrest was launched, I must have been Intel biased?
Isn't it much more likely that it is simply matter that the dualcore opteron and Woodcrest were the strongest CPUs when they were launched?
Anyway, just read my blogposts and you'll see that I clearly exposed AMD's strengths in HPC and some server apps.
erikejw - Friday, September 19, 2008 - link
No, I don't think you are biased at all.Actually I think you might be the one with the best and most indepth and interesting reviews on the www.
Anandtechs early days is a different story though when they were more or less financed by Intel. I only speculated on the timing of the virualisation review that I thought was funny.
Did you choose to do it yourself or did someone else at Anandtech advise you that it might be interesting to look into virtualisation and it just happens to be at the exact moment Intel smashed AMD in that regard and AMD has owned the v scene for years, only you know.
If you choose to do it and noone suggested it I think it is due to your interest in the techonlogy and the increasing importance it has.
If someone suggested it to you I believe it is someone with some close Intel connections and that contact suggested to him, hey guys, you migtht want to look into virtualisation :)
1.You are extremally unbiased
2.You make excellent unbiased reviews
3.Could not figure something out :)
Rav3n - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
1/11th of your staff is female, and since you have at least one you are good to go? Fool-proof logic! What percent of your readers are female? Could it be... less than 10%? I'm not saying they correlate.I actually just looked around for bios. I think that might be the first time I ever looked. "About" had some stuff. Didn't exactly get the feel-goods from it.
FYI IT site is taking a really long time (2 minutes per page) to load. Maybe it's just that I dropped my laptop a few times, but the rest of the site seems zippy.
Gannon - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
Givem the asymmetry of memory bandwidth and GPU bandwidth what does Intel have up it's sleeve in terms of main memory bus architecture? We've been hearing that GPU's and CPU's are becoming more integrated but I think the opposite is true. GPU's have ridiculous memory bandwidth that outstrips anything modern CPU's coupled with the old PC main memory architecture have... how are you going to deal with the threat should GPU computing take off? They are away ahead in terms of bandwidth. Or is there something else I am missing here?DeepThought86 - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
So basically you wait until Nehalem is on the scene because Penryn is so outclassed by Barcelona in virtualization benchmarks?Do you guys have even a shred of credibility left?
Finally - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
[quote]Is there any reason why you jump so quickly to the conclusion that we are favoring Intel?[/quote]That's right, you heard the man! Do it slower, please.
JohanAnandtech - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
Is there any reason why you jump so quickly to the conclusion that we are favoring Intel? If you read the other blogs, we have defending the Barcelona architecture (as it performs well in server benchmarks) where many were simply calling it a disaster just because it doesn't perform well in gaming. Just take a look at the blog posts at it.anandtech.com.(http://it.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=443">http://it.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=443 is one example)
Let us see where this misunderstanding comes from. First of all, our virtualization article is late because we want to make sure we were not unfair to VMware, Microsoft or the Xen vendors. It was an article mostly focused on the hypervisors, not the CPUs. So the article got delayed several times.
Secondly, Nehalem is not the CPU that is launched today, it is Intel's six-core Dunnington. It is not weird IMHO that we focus on a new launch and delay an already late article a bit more.
JohanAnandtech - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
Is there any reason why you jump so quickly to the conclusion that we are favoring Intel? If you read the other blogs, we have defending the Barcelona architecture (as it performs well in server benchmarks) where many were simply calling it a disaster just because it doesn't perform well in gaming. Just take a look at the blog posts at it.anandtech.com.(http://it.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=443">http://it.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=443 is one example)
Let us see where this misunderstanding comes from. First of all, our virtualization article is late because we want to make sure we were not unfair to VMware, Microsoft or the Xen vendors. It was an article mostly focused on the hypervisors, not the CPUs. So the article got delayed several times.
Secondly, Nehalem is not the CPU that is launched today, it is Intel's six-core Dunnington. It is not weird IMHO that we focus on a new launch and delay an already late article a bit more.
Sunrise089 - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
Wow - triple-post from a staff-member!I bet you wish there was an Edit button now :)
Polynikes - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
LOL, I'm sure he's already working on implementing one, if only for a few minutes. ;DJohanAnandtech - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
Is there any reason why you jump so quickly to the conclusion that we are favoring Intel? If you read the other blogs, we have defending the Barcelona architecture (as it performs well in server benchmarks) where many were simply calling it a disaster just because it doesn't perform well in gaming. Just take a look at the blog posts at it.anandtech.com.Let us see where this misunderstanding comes from. First of all, our virtualization article is late because we want to make sure we were not unfair to VMware, Microsoft or the Xen vendors. It was an article mostly focused on the hypervisors, not the CPUs. So the article got delayed several times.
Secondly, Nehalem is not the CPU that is launched today, it is Intel's six-core Dunnington. It is not weird IMHO that we focus on a new launch and delay an already late article a bit more.
JohanAnandtech - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
Is there any reason why you jump so quickly to the conclusion that we are favoring Intel? If you read the other blogs, we have defending the Barcelona architecture where many were simply calling it a disaster just because it doesn't perform well in gaming. Just take a look at the blog posts at it.anandtech.com.Let us see where this misunderstanding comes from. First of all, our virtualization article is late because we want to make sure we were not unfair to VMware, Microsoft or the Xen vendors. It was an article mostly focused on the hypervisors, not the CPUs. So the article got delayed several times.
Secondly, Nehalem is not the CPU that is launched today, it is Intel's six-core Dunnington. It is not weird IMHO that we focus on a new launch and delay an already late article a bit more.
BaronMatrix - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
Why would women have a different opinion about technology? Maybe that's what the problem is. You're just a human but they're "only women." No wonder they charge us for sex.crackedwiseman - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
Recently I have read multiple articles with say that the CPU voltage and DDR3 SDRAM voltage are synchronous, resulting in rather disappointing memory standards of DDR3-800 and DDR3-1066. I realize that having a triple-channel memory controller may make up for lost bandwidth, but I see no advantage in either performance nor performance per watt to linking the voltage of the RAM and CPU, particularly given the differing voltage tolerance of the parts. So I ask a simple question: why?crackedwiseman - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
Read here:http://www.nordichardware.com/forum/viewtopic.php?...">http://www.nordichardware.com/forum/viewtopic.php?...
Felofasofa - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
What a load of rubbish. You believe a couple posters speculating on a tech forum? Why would they bother sticking a 16 phase power delivery for the processor and a separate 3 phase power delivery for memory if they were to be syncronised?JarredWalton - Monday, September 15, 2008 - link
I've never seen or heard anything to indicate memory voltage and CPU voltage are linked in any way. DDR2 standard is 1.8V and DDR3 standard is 1.5V according to JEDEC. Needless to say, all modern CPUs run at much lower voltages (unless you start heavily overvolting and overclocking). Perhaps you're referring to some other voltage? If you have any links, that would be helpful.