Slashdot Mirror

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040504/index .html

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040504/index .html

Here's another two other reviews, one at AnandTech and another at TomsHardware

http://www6.tomshardware.com/display/20040413/inde x.html

Crop-chopper?

They need to get some serious army jets out there just in case they pass any terrorists on the way..

But is there a reason to use such small jets?

Magneto-optical storage uses a trick borrowed from Nature, in which geologists are able to detect the wanderings of the Earth's magnetic poles. This magnetic data has been unaffected for millions of years! A recent review of the technology can be found here, at Tom's Hardware site.

it claims DirectX 9 capability

What makes you think ATI's upcoming batch of cards won't have the same power requirements? The Radeon 9800 XT draws more power than the upcoming Geforce 6800 Ultra:

Time for a little reading.

Good luck defending your statement.

1. The power consumptions of the last generation nvidia and ati cards are indeed very similar. Please don't say ATI's cards consume less power

Comparison 1
Comparison 2

2. The ATI Radeon X800s will require two power rails also. So stop dreaming about a "power efficient" part and buy a new PSU :(
ATI needs extra power too

That said, I'm no fanboy of nVidia or ATI though. The new GF 6800U is still occupying one extra PCI slot and blowing a whole lot of hot air inside the case. Imagine someone put another 100W+ Prescott next to it. I just feel uncomfortable for a GFX card to dissipate so much of heat right next to the CPU. But well... ATI is gonna do that too (except for the two-slot thing)

If there's any reason I'd look forward towards the X800s, I hope they won't require two slots - that is just inelegant. But based on the two molex connectors on the X800s, and the power consumption of their older parts, I won't hold any hope that ATI would "save power".

1. The power consumptions of the last generation nvidia and ati cards are indeed very similar. Please don't say ATI's cards consume less power

Comparison 1
Comparison 2

2. The ATI Radeon X800s will require two power rails also. So stop dreaming about a "power efficient" part and buy a new PSU :(
ATI needs extra power too

That said, I'm no fanboy of nVidia or ATI though. The new GF 6800U is still occupying one extra PCI slot and blowing a whole lot of hot air inside the case. Imagine someone put another 100W+ Prescott next to it. I just feel uncomfortable for a GFX card to dissipate so much of heat right next to the CPU. But well... ATI is gonna do that too (except for the two-slot thing)

If there's any reason I'd look forward towards the X800s, I hope they won't require two slots - that is just inelegant. But based on the two molex connectors on the X800s, and the power consumption of their older parts, I won't hold any hope that ATI would "save power".

You are also required to download other programs/packages to make your program work.

I love how they demonstrate video players by showing Steve Ballmer's sweaty-pitted Developers video on Xine.

Part 1 | Part 2

Part 1 | Part 2

Part 1 | Part 2

So the conclusion for all this is that in the near future, do not expect SATA controllers to support any optical drives, except the chipset-based controllers, and then only the Intel chip has been confirmed to work.

That's quite a generalization based on such limited experience with SATA optical drives and one rep at SIIG. Based on the Thread text, it seems that the problems with optical drives lie primarily with the host controller firmware and secondarily with the drivers. Considering that SATA optical drives haven't really hit the market yet, is it surprising that the present generation of controllers' firmware and software aren't supporting them yet?

Our source of info tells us that it seems to work very well with chipset-based SATA controllers, and not very well with PCI-based controllers.

Which ones? How many different makes and models were tested? The author later states that identical chipsets in the tested onboard controller and PCI-based controller had "slightly different" firmware.

I think I'm a bit more optimistic than the author that firmware and driver support for these drives will come when SATA optical drives have a reasonably sound market presence. I don't think there are hardware-based incompatibilities with the current generation of SATA controllers, which was my initial fear reading the gloom and doom in the article. Then again, I'm pretty optimistic about SATA and Serial Attached SCSI in general (even though the latter seems to be progressing at a snail's pace). I have an onboard SI 3112 SATARaid controller, and I can't wait to put it to use. 2.5" SuperSlim drives + SATA = extremely lightweight, low-profile storage, hot-pluggable mass storage with a much faster bus than FastUSB or Firewire.

Anyways, if Intel can get away from clock-speed ratings, I hope it can get away from 100 watt processors. Where are the quiet and efficient Pentium M desktop systems? Some companies are designing motherboards for them, but there isn't anything easily available. I'm typing this on a 1.3GHz Celeron system (the 1GHz VIA C3 was just a little too slow, crippled by its tiny cache and weak FPU...I'm using the same near-silent heatsink setup as before, and getting 38 degrees versus 32), but a Pentium M would be ideal for a quiet but powerful general-purpose system.

I noticed they used the AMD64 3200, But the AMD64 3200+ only has 1/2 the cache compared to the 3400+, that extra cache should boost the build process even more.

Toms hardware has nice review and benchmarks for the 3400 vs the P4 3.4.

Also anyone notice, in both articles, P4's clean house on synthetic benchmarks, but real world (build process) the AMD cleans house.

I'm in the market for a gaming notebook, so I've done some research. I think the best bet may be the the ABS G1 Gamer's Notebook, which Tom's Hardware Guide reviewed last week. A WAY better price than, say, the top-of-the-line Voodoo PC ENVY m:860. It may not have the ATI 9700, but the 9600 is still pretty good.

If you get a GOOD LCD you won't get much of that. Monitors run DVI with a 16 ms response time are prime, but of course that will run you more money, you might want to look into contrast ratios as well though the benefits of high contrast ratios are debatable.

From Tom's Hardware: IBM's processor plans: Build your own microchip.

Using screenshots such as these might not help convince Windows Users to switch : I do not mean to troll but I think Nero is quite unequaled under Linux, unless I missed something (which is possible since I switched to OSX)...

Or here

Try Michael's Computers, Tom's Hardware just did a review of them. He has the BEST laptops on earth, at least in theory...

Try Michael's Computers, Tom's Hardware just did a review of them. He has the BEST laptops on earth, at least in theory...

dragonball vs xscale benchmarks
seems like a 66mhz dragonball in the sony t675 is no for behind the xscale 250mhz in the sony nx70, but considering the cpu speed went from 66mhz to 200mhz, this might be one smoking cpu, at least judging from the integer benchmark on this page.

I'm an occasional reader of Tom's Hardware, and they always stressed the importance of fast memory timings in affecting overall system performance.

Until recently. Check this recent test, the conclusions of which are contrary to what they have previously said, and contrary to what many speed-freaks have come to believe due to constant repetition.

For those who can't be bothered reading, the bottom line is this: memory timings matter little in affecting overall performance of current platforms.

addressing 4):
I've seen several sites using compiler benchmarks recently. Quick summary: The P4 Prescott is about the same speed as the P4 Northwood, if compiling isn't done in parallel both don't have the slightest luck against Athlon 64 (can't even beat Athlon XP). However, if something like make -j3 is used, the P4 are very close to the Athlon 64. Some link (Visual Studio, can't remember the other which used gcc): http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040318/athlon- fx53-28.html

You'd better look at the results from TomsHardware before starting to rant about it. They are clearly drawing the conclusion tht AMD is better than Intel. Do NOT bring your biased personal taste toward other websites up here!

Now this is the ultimate cooling system... =)

The last part of the video (the flower thing) is even scary!

One of the first cases of this was when Tom's Hardware (then only a startup site) reviewed a Riva TNT and said it was twice as fast as 3DFX voodoo (obviously untrue, but it's unknown if Nvidia paid him anything to say this). Eventually 3DFX picked up on this and demanded that Tom changes it, which he did.

Here are the reviews from Tom's site:

Comparison of Graphics Cards with NVIDIA's RIVA TNT Chip
Addendum to Banshee, Savage3D and TNT Preview
New 3D Chips - Banshee, G200, RIVA TNT And Savage3D
Preview of 3Dfx Voodoo Banshee, S3 Savage3D and NVIDIA RIVA TNT

I only skimmed the articles, but he doesn't seem to be saying that the TNT is twice as fast. The last article concludes:

"NVIDIA's RIVA TNT is not the new wonder chip as some people may have expected. However it is sticking up very well against its toughest competitors from 3Dfx. 3Dfx has still got an edge in applications that are available in a Glide version and in games that don't strain the CPU as much, thus giving a dual Voodoo2 configuration the chance to show its power. However, there are many occasions where TNT is at least as good as single Voodoo2, dual Voodoo2 and certainly better than Voodoo Banshee."

Seems fairly objective to me. Did I miss something? Maybe the articles have been edited?

One of the first cases of this was when Tom's Hardware (then only a startup site) reviewed a Riva TNT and said it was twice as fast as 3DFX voodoo (obviously untrue, but it's unknown if Nvidia paid him anything to say this). Eventually 3DFX picked up on this and demanded that Tom changes it, which he did.

Here are the reviews from Tom's site:

Comparison of Graphics Cards with NVIDIA's RIVA TNT Chip
Addendum to Banshee, Savage3D and TNT Preview
New 3D Chips - Banshee, G200, RIVA TNT And Savage3D
Preview of 3Dfx Voodoo Banshee, S3 Savage3D and NVIDIA RIVA TNT

I only skimmed the articles, but he doesn't seem to be saying that the TNT is twice as fast. The last article concludes:

"NVIDIA's RIVA TNT is not the new wonder chip as some people may have expected. However it is sticking up very well against its toughest competitors from 3Dfx. 3Dfx has still got an edge in applications that are available in a Glide version and in games that don't strain the CPU as much, thus giving a dual Voodoo2 configuration the chance to show its power. However, there are many occasions where TNT is at least as good as single Voodoo2, dual Voodoo2 and certainly better than Voodoo Banshee."

Seems fairly objective to me. Did I miss something? Maybe the articles have been edited?

One of the first cases of this was when Tom's Hardware (then only a startup site) reviewed a Riva TNT and said it was twice as fast as 3DFX voodoo (obviously untrue, but it's unknown if Nvidia paid him anything to say this). Eventually 3DFX picked up on this and demanded that Tom changes it, which he did.

Here are the reviews from Tom's site:

Comparison of Graphics Cards with NVIDIA's RIVA TNT Chip
Addendum to Banshee, Savage3D and TNT Preview
New 3D Chips - Banshee, G200, RIVA TNT And Savage3D
Preview of 3Dfx Voodoo Banshee, S3 Savage3D and NVIDIA RIVA TNT

I only skimmed the articles, but he doesn't seem to be saying that the TNT is twice as fast. The last article concludes:

"NVIDIA's RIVA TNT is not the new wonder chip as some people may have expected. However it is sticking up very well against its toughest competitors from 3Dfx. 3Dfx has still got an edge in applications that are available in a Glide version and in games that don't strain the CPU as much, thus giving a dual Voodoo2 configuration the chance to show its power. However, there are many occasions where TNT is at least as good as single Voodoo2, dual Voodoo2 and certainly better than Voodoo Banshee."

Seems fairly objective to me. Did I miss something? Maybe the articles have been edited?

One of the first cases of this was when Tom's Hardware (then only a startup site) reviewed a Riva TNT and said it was twice as fast as 3DFX voodoo (obviously untrue, but it's unknown if Nvidia paid him anything to say this). Eventually 3DFX picked up on this and demanded that Tom changes it, which he did.

Here are the reviews from Tom's site:

Comparison of Graphics Cards with NVIDIA's RIVA TNT Chip
Addendum to Banshee, Savage3D and TNT Preview
New 3D Chips - Banshee, G200, RIVA TNT And Savage3D
Preview of 3Dfx Voodoo Banshee, S3 Savage3D and NVIDIA RIVA TNT

I only skimmed the articles, but he doesn't seem to be saying that the TNT is twice as fast. The last article concludes:

"NVIDIA's RIVA TNT is not the new wonder chip as some people may have expected. However it is sticking up very well against its toughest competitors from 3Dfx. 3Dfx has still got an edge in applications that are available in a Glide version and in games that don't strain the CPU as much, thus giving a dual Voodoo2 configuration the chance to show its power. However, there are many occasions where TNT is at least as good as single Voodoo2, dual Voodoo2 and certainly better than Voodoo Banshee."

Seems fairly objective to me. Did I miss something? Maybe the articles have been edited?

Tom's review is here.

Tom's review is here.

If those servers were MX51's, you wouldn't need the paging system, you could blast it at 180db!

These things have been featured on Tom's Hardware!

http://www.tomshardware.com/column/20040317/index. html

• He scams on computer sales
• He hijacked the website of censorware project
• He allowed a wholly unscientific article to appear on slashdot
  

• THGs review of the TNN500A

case - antec sonata or slk3700bqe

PSU - antec's yet-to-be-released phantom 350W PSU, or check this list:

• SPCRs list of PSUs

using vibration absorbing grommets for everything that vibrates(HDD, Optical, fans, etc.)

quieter fans:

• SPCRs fan list

First off,

Please do some actual research before you state something as a fact. An accrual informed write-up of multi Monitor support in windows

And that review focuses solely on gaming under multi monitor situations in windows, there are even more options available if you are not trying to game. So your "only 2" options in windows statement is quite false. Thanks for your time.

Tom's Hardware has nothing to worry about from IBM.

IBM's GXP Deathstar hard drives, as /. regulars are well aware of, are exactly that. Death comes to your data on these drives eventually. Too bad for a large number of customers, it came sooner rather than later.

When the news first broke on these drives, some tech sites came out with the news, and others kept fairly silent. Silence isn't a crime. But continuing to use Deathstars in review gear should be. Why? Because some readers, myself included, used reviews and testing gear examples from Tom's Hardware to build our first computers. Take advice and recommendations from the experts, and you get a better computer, right?

As the current /. story points out, why bite the hand that feeds you advance facts on hardware under ndas, and direct contact with company engineers?

Consumer Reports buys everything they test. With the money that Tom's Hardware has made from advertising on its site (from reader views), they should be doing the same.

Don't take my word for it. Check the dates of when the Deathstar stories first appeared. Then check the hardware reviews on Tom's Hardware. Not just hard drive reviews. Check reviews of other hardware related or dependent upon hard drive speed to get some benchmarks or results. Then see what hard drives are used in the benchmarks, and in the review gear.

While some of their readers went down in flames, others were announcing that the there was a problem, and they continued on as if nothing was wrong. They may have acknowledged the problem in a small story or two iirc (maybe not even that), but they continued using the hard drives in their review gear, without a footnote or warning about them.

Why?

Tom's Hardware has nothing to worry about from IBM.

IBM's GXP Deathstar hard drives, as /. regulars are well aware of, are exactly that. Death comes to your data on these drives eventually. Too bad for a large number of customers, it came sooner rather than later.

When the news first broke on these drives, some tech sites came out with the news, and others kept fairly silent. Silence isn't a crime. But continuing to use Deathstars in review gear should be. Why? Because some readers, myself included, used reviews and testing gear examples from Tom's Hardware to build our first computers. Take advice and recommendations from the experts, and you get a better computer, right?

As the current /. story points out, why bite the hand that feeds you advance facts on hardware under ndas, and direct contact with company engineers?

Consumer Reports buys everything they test. With the money that Tom's Hardware has made from advertising on its site (from reader views), they should be doing the same.

Don't take my word for it. Check the dates of when the Deathstar stories first appeared. Then check the hardware reviews on Tom's Hardware. Not just hard drive reviews. Check reviews of other hardware related or dependent upon hard drive speed to get some benchmarks or results. Then see what hard drives are used in the benchmarks, and in the review gear.

While some of their readers went down in flames, others were announcing that the there was a problem, and they continued on as if nothing was wrong. They may have acknowledged the problem in a small story or two iirc (maybe not even that), but they continued using the hard drives in their review gear, without a footnote or warning about them.

Why?

One of the first cases of this was when Tom's Hardware (then only a startup site) reviewed a Riva TNT and said it was twice as fast as 3DFX voodoo (obviously untrue, but it's unknown if Nvidia paid him anything to say this). Eventually 3DFX picked up on this and demanded that Tom changes it, which he did.

Here are the reviews from Tom's site:

Comparison of Graphics Cards with NVIDIA's RIVA TNT Chip
Addendum to Banshee, Savage3D and TNT Preview
New 3D Chips - Banshee, G200, RIVA TNT And Savage3D
Preview of 3Dfx Voodoo Banshee, S3 Savage3D and NVIDIA RIVA TNT

I only skimmed the articles, but he doesn't seem to be saying that the TNT is twice as fast. The last article concludes:

"NVIDIA's RIVA TNT is not the new wonder chip as some people may have expected. However it is sticking up very well against its toughest competitors from 3Dfx. 3Dfx has still got an edge in applications that are available in a Glide version and in games that don't strain the CPU as much, thus giving a dual Voodoo2 configuration the chance to show its power. However, there are many occasions where TNT is at least as good as single Voodoo2, dual Voodoo2 and certainly better than Voodoo Banshee."

Seems fairly objective to me. Did I miss something? Maybe the articles have been edited?

One of the first cases of this was when Tom's Hardware (then only a startup site) reviewed a Riva TNT and said it was twice as fast as 3DFX voodoo (obviously untrue, but it's unknown if Nvidia paid him anything to say this). Eventually 3DFX picked up on this and demanded that Tom changes it, which he did.

Here are the reviews from Tom's site:

Comparison of Graphics Cards with NVIDIA's RIVA TNT Chip
Addendum to Banshee, Savage3D and TNT Preview
New 3D Chips - Banshee, G200, RIVA TNT And Savage3D
Preview of 3Dfx Voodoo Banshee, S3 Savage3D and NVIDIA RIVA TNT

I only skimmed the articles, but he doesn't seem to be saying that the TNT is twice as fast. The last article concludes:

"NVIDIA's RIVA TNT is not the new wonder chip as some people may have expected. However it is sticking up very well against its toughest competitors from 3Dfx. 3Dfx has still got an edge in applications that are available in a Glide version and in games that don't strain the CPU as much, thus giving a dual Voodoo2 configuration the chance to show its power. However, there are many occasions where TNT is at least as good as single Voodoo2, dual Voodoo2 and certainly better than Voodoo Banshee."

Seems fairly objective to me. Did I miss something? Maybe the articles have been edited?

One of the first cases of this was when Tom's Hardware (then only a startup site) reviewed a Riva TNT and said it was twice as fast as 3DFX voodoo (obviously untrue, but it's unknown if Nvidia paid him anything to say this). Eventually 3DFX picked up on this and demanded that Tom changes it, which he did.

Here are the reviews from Tom's site:

Comparison of Graphics Cards with NVIDIA's RIVA TNT Chip
Addendum to Banshee, Savage3D and TNT Preview
New 3D Chips - Banshee, G200, RIVA TNT And Savage3D
Preview of 3Dfx Voodoo Banshee, S3 Savage3D and NVIDIA RIVA TNT

I only skimmed the articles, but he doesn't seem to be saying that the TNT is twice as fast. The last article concludes:

"NVIDIA's RIVA TNT is not the new wonder chip as some people may have expected. However it is sticking up very well against its toughest competitors from 3Dfx. 3Dfx has still got an edge in applications that are available in a Glide version and in games that don't strain the CPU as much, thus giving a dual Voodoo2 configuration the chance to show its power. However, there are many occasions where TNT is at least as good as single Voodoo2, dual Voodoo2 and certainly better than Voodoo Banshee."

Seems fairly objective to me. Did I miss something? Maybe the articles have been edited?

One of the first cases of this was when Tom's Hardware (then only a startup site) reviewed a Riva TNT and said it was twice as fast as 3DFX voodoo (obviously untrue, but it's unknown if Nvidia paid him anything to say this). Eventually 3DFX picked up on this and demanded that Tom changes it, which he did.

Here are the reviews from Tom's site:

Comparison of Graphics Cards with NVIDIA's RIVA TNT Chip
Addendum to Banshee, Savage3D and TNT Preview
New 3D Chips - Banshee, G200, RIVA TNT And Savage3D
Preview of 3Dfx Voodoo Banshee, S3 Savage3D and NVIDIA RIVA TNT

I only skimmed the articles, but he doesn't seem to be saying that the TNT is twice as fast. The last article concludes:

"NVIDIA's RIVA TNT is not the new wonder chip as some people may have expected. However it is sticking up very well against its toughest competitors from 3Dfx. 3Dfx has still got an edge in applications that are available in a Glide version and in games that don't strain the CPU as much, thus giving a dual Voodoo2 configuration the chance to show its power. However, there are many occasions where TNT is at least as good as single Voodoo2, dual Voodoo2 and certainly better than Voodoo Banshee."

Seems fairly objective to me. Did I miss something? Maybe the articles have been edited?

Also, don't forget the Pentium III Tualatin 1.13GHz scandal.

It's really amazing watching an automotive vehicle going havoc :)
Robot Vehicles Take To The Desert (videos on last page)
Obviously they're trying to do a preemptive strike on the journalists fearing bad publicity!
Still, it's a pity the motocross from the blue team couldn't start properly. But finally, they qualified as most of the other teams when DARPA lowered the terms of qualification.
There are more videos on DARPA's Grand Challenge Gallery
I wonder whether we can expect Number 5 (Short Circuit) to be on the next years list of competitors :)

MSI have allready that on they MegaPC you can find a review on Tomshardware web site !
I don't believe that Slashdot get this storie on the main page. and they never put this storie about global warmimg online !

This Tom's HW Article talks about the MSI MiniPC that does the same thing.
Makes me wish I'd held off on buying my Shuttle.