Slashdot Mirror

If you're in the market for a new AMD motherboard, perhaps you should wait and see how the new VIA KT400

Well some of these boards have been tested. According to this article on Toms Hardware the KT400 boards aren't worth it. Interesting benchmarks, that is for sure.

I think you are getting confused- memory bandwidth has been Athlon's biggest bottleneck by far for a long time now. If you don't believe me, check out the Memory bench results. So far AMD just hasn't been able to compete with the 400 and 533 MHz FSB.

see for yourself

Speaking of Tom's... After following the BIOS article (which is a very good read), the first forum I stumbled across was:

http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tp c&s=50009562&f=77909774&m=8400979235

In this forum the poster makes a pretty convincing case that the photo of the P4 3.3GHz chip in the "Hot Contraband: P4 With 3.6 GHz" article was forged. A subtraction analysis (described in detail in the forum) shows a nice little black box indicating they just copied a "3" to make the 3.3GHz photo.

In my mind, this throws a lot of doubt on anything posted on Tom's hardware. Which is really too bad-- I liked that site a lot.

THG has had a good BIOS guide as well:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/mainboard/97q1/970101 /index.html

and also a guide on BIOS tuning:
http://www.tomshardware.com/howto/01q3/010725/inde x.html

THG has had a good BIOS guide as well:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/mainboard/97q1/970101 /index.html

and also a guide on BIOS tuning:
http://www.tomshardware.com/howto/01q3/010725/inde x.html

• Lameness filters (It blocks a lot of legitmate posts)
  
• Unnessary posting delays. Hasnt taco learned to touch type? A lot of posts are typed in less than 20 seconds and it is a ANNOYING DELAY! 2 minute ban? Come on, so some are faster then others, big deal, some people have more to say than others
  
• Broken moderation system, The whole point is to sort the gems from the crap, yet a lot of posts designed to make a LIVELY DISCUSSION are MODERATED as flamebait! Come on, not everyone likes X, but just because some one bashes it dosent mean its Flamebait. Flame bait is more useful for DIRECT INSULTS and not legitmate discussions.
  

• Crapfloods, a meaningless flood of random letters or text, which the lameness filter does a crappy job at trying to stop, besides trolls have written tools using the opensource slashcode to generate crapfloods which bypass the filter
• Links to offensive websites, the most common one is known a http://www.goatse.cx, a awful site which shows a bleeding anus being stretched on the front page. Trolls sneak these links in by posting messages that look legitimate, but infact are sneaky redirects to the site. Common examples include rd.yahoo.com, www.linux-kernel.tk, goatsex.cjb.net, and googles "Im feeling lucky".
• Trying to break slashdot, this is actually a good thing, as it helps test slashdot for bugs. Famous examples include the goatse.cx javascript pop-up, the pagewidening post and the browser crashing post!
  

Shuttle SS40

HTTP/1.1 Server Too Busy

I am assuming that the server was hosted from the mocha machine, and that the P4's thermal protection kicked in before it melted itself into the socket. (Reminds me of this.) If the "little machine that could" survives a slashdotting it would be a neat proof of concept and even a potential marketing angle.

Tom's Hardware

I don't think many of us need all the stuff this guy carries, but it's a nice article to get you started.

• Lameness filters (It blocks a lot of legitmate posts)
  
• Unnessary posting delays. Hasnt taco learned to touch type? A lot of posts are typed in less than 20 seconds and it is a ANNOYING DELAY! 2 minute ban? Come on, so some are faster then others, big deal, some people have more to say than others
  
• Broken moderation system, The whole point is to sort the gems from the crap, yet a lot of posts designed to make a LIVELY DISCUSSION are MODERATED as flamebait! Come on, not everyone likes X, but just because some one bashes it dosent mean its Flamebait. Flame bait is more useful for DIRECT INSULTS and not legitmate discussions.
  

• Crapfloods, a meaningless flood of random letters or text, which the lameness filter does a crappy job at trying to stop, besides trolls have written tools using the opensource slashcode to generate crapfloods which bypass the filter
• Links to offensive websites, the most common one is known a http://www.goatse.cx, a awful site which shows a bleeding anus being stretched on the front page. Trolls sneak these links in by posting messages that look legitimate, but infact are sneaky redirects to the site. Common examples include rd.yahoo.com, www.linux-kernel.tk, goatsex.cjb.net, and googles "Im feeling lucky".
• Trying to break slashdot, this is actually a good thing, as it helps test slashdot for bugs. Famous examples include the goatse.cx javascript pop-up, the pagewidening post and the browser crashing post!
  

I also disagree with the original poster about just using DDR 400. Not only a JEDEC specification for DDR 400 ram doesn't exist (and DDR 400 ram is needed to get really a performance improvement out of a DDR 400 FSB), but first boards which support such rams have some stability problems obviously at that speeds (the new asus kt400 board only allows one (!) dimm at DDR400 speed, and 2 at DDR333 speed). So, this would most likely be a nightmare for board manufacturers.

What's more, Microsoft XP's UPnP implementation has an API that lets an application register port forwarding at the router (article here). I don't know if this is targeted more at the home market, but don't you ever depoly an UPnP-enabled firewall...

Here are part 1 , part 2 , part 3 , part 4 and part 5 . Pabst's accusation is that Smith and Bennett have both written articles where they claimed to have discovered flaws in the benchmarks that make one manufacturer's product look good, when they were really being coached by the that manufacturer's rivals.

Here is Smith's rebuttal .

Van Smith used to work for Tom Pabst. In my opinion the quality and utility of tomshardware.com has gone down since Van Smith departed.

And, about this fight, I would say that Dr Pabst (he is an MD) hasn't learned the value of civility. In my opinion, in a fight like this one, people can't really follow the details, so they base their assessment of who is right, by looking to see who remains more civil.

Here are part 1 , part 2 , part 3 , part 4 and part 5 . Pabst's accusation is that Smith and Bennett have both written articles where they claimed to have discovered flaws in the benchmarks that make one manufacturer's product look good, when they were really being coached by the that manufacturer's rivals.

Here is Smith's rebuttal .

Van Smith used to work for Tom Pabst. In my opinion the quality and utility of tomshardware.com has gone down since Van Smith departed.

And, about this fight, I would say that Dr Pabst (he is an MD) hasn't learned the value of civility. In my opinion, in a fight like this one, people can't really follow the details, so they base their assessment of who is right, by looking to see who remains more civil.

Here are part 1 , part 2 , part 3 , part 4 and part 5 . Pabst's accusation is that Smith and Bennett have both written articles where they claimed to have discovered flaws in the benchmarks that make one manufacturer's product look good, when they were really being coached by the that manufacturer's rivals.

Here is Smith's rebuttal .

Van Smith used to work for Tom Pabst. In my opinion the quality and utility of tomshardware.com has gone down since Van Smith departed.

And, about this fight, I would say that Dr Pabst (he is an MD) hasn't learned the value of civility. In my opinion, in a fight like this one, people can't really follow the details, so they base their assessment of who is right, by looking to see who remains more civil.

Here are part 1 , part 2 , part 3 , part 4 and part 5 . Pabst's accusation is that Smith and Bennett have both written articles where they claimed to have discovered flaws in the benchmarks that make one manufacturer's product look good, when they were really being coached by the that manufacturer's rivals.

Here is Smith's rebuttal .

Van Smith used to work for Tom Pabst. In my opinion the quality and utility of tomshardware.com has gone down since Van Smith departed.

And, about this fight, I would say that Dr Pabst (he is an MD) hasn't learned the value of civility. In my opinion, in a fight like this one, people can't really follow the details, so they base their assessment of who is right, by looking to see who remains more civil.

Here are part 1 , part 2 , part 3 , part 4 and part 5 . Pabst's accusation is that Smith and Bennett have both written articles where they claimed to have discovered flaws in the benchmarks that make one manufacturer's product look good, when they were really being coached by the that manufacturer's rivals.

Here is Smith's rebuttal .

Van Smith used to work for Tom Pabst. In my opinion the quality and utility of tomshardware.com has gone down since Van Smith departed.

And, about this fight, I would say that Dr Pabst (he is an MD) hasn't learned the value of civility. In my opinion, in a fight like this one, people can't really follow the details, so they base their assessment of who is right, by looking to see who remains more civil.

First,

Tom's Hardware recently reviewed and compared MP3s, WMAs, and a newcomer AAC, from Dolby. It seems like AAC may turn out to be a non-microsoft based competitor. Perhaps this is a new format that will be embraced if MP3s start to downtrend?

And to those who say "So what, we don't have to pay it!",

Who is going to pay it? The software companies? You think they're not going to pass those costs on to the end consumer? You've got another thing coming.

Oh, and those freeware players you've been using? Well, most freeware/Open source companies arn't going to pay the $.75 for you to use their product, so I guess all those will be yanked.

On the one hand, this sucks -- or has the potential to. On the other hand, has anyone else considered -- the music codec market has remained pretty much unchanged for a long while now. We're constantly getting better MPEG encoding, but we've been using MP3 for ages. I refuse to believe that there is nothing better!!
Perhaps this will stimulate development of different and better technologies -- I've always been one for diversification.

*COUGH* fixs HTML *COUGH*

When ever a new pentium 4 CPU is released Germany experiences sudden lag.

When ever new office toys are sent out for review Australia takes a hit

and when ever some idiot with a backhoe digs up a backbone line, well hell, the entire USA goes ploink.

• [H]ard|OCP Intel Pentium 4 @ 2.80GHz : Intel is breaking out the big guns with their sights set directly on the competition. Will the 2.80GHz Northwood be enough for Intel to hold onto the performance crown?
• Anandtech Intel's Pentium 4 2.80GHz - Moving to the Head of the Class
• Tom's Hardware Speed Isn't Everything: P4/2800 Meets Athlon XP 2600+
• Ace's Hardware Faster Still: The 2.8 GHz Pentium 4
• FiringSquad Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz Review
• Hexus.net Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz Review
• SimHQ.com Intel "Northwood" 2.80GHz Pentium 4 Processor using .13 Technology
• Tech Report Intel's Pentium 4 2.8GHz processor - Two billion eight-hundred thousand hertz
• Hot Hardware The Pentium 4 2.8GHz Processor - Intel ups the anti once again
• xbit labs Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz against Athlon XP 2600+
• VR Zone Intel Fastest Pentium 4 2.8Ghz Review
• HardcoreWare A Thorn in AMD's Hide
• Lost Circuits Pentium4 2.8 GHz - Another Hit And Run

Can you read? The Athlon XP 2600 is way cheaper than the 2.8GHz Pentium 4.

Your point about there being no Athlon XP 2600s available at retail is legitimate, but I do not see any way that you can interpret the $269 price of the Athlon XP 2600 as higher than the $499 price of the 2.8GHz Pentium 4.

I honestly don't understand why you AMD fanboys feel the need to misrepresent facts

Who's misrepresenting facts here, you or me?

• [H]ard|OCP Intel Pentium 4 @ 2.80GHz : Intel is breaking out the big guns with their sights set directly on the competition. Will the 2.80GHz Northwood be enough for Intel to hold onto the performance crown?
• Anandtech Intel's Pentium 4 2.80GHz - Moving to the Head of the Class
• Tom's Hardware Speed Isn't Everything: P4/2800 Meets Athlon XP 2600+
• Ace's Hardware Faster Still: The 2.8 GHz Pentium 4
• FiringSquad Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz Review
• Hexus.net Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz Review
• SimHQ.com Intel "Northwood" 2.80GHz Pentium 4 Processor using .13 Technology
• Tech Report Intel's Pentium 4 2.8GHz processor - Two billion eight-hundred thousand hertz
• Hot Hardware The Pentium 4 2.8GHz Processor - Intel ups the anti once again
• xbit labs Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz against Athlon XP 2600+

Did anyone bother to read in Tom's hardware about it?

Tom's hardware

Have you considered PoE-based solutions? Here's one from 3Com, the NJ100 Network Jack (and a review of it by Tom's Hardware). While the NJ100 is not intended for use inside a closed box, using one of these would allow you to route power along with data between the various modules in one of your systems.

Maybe the software is to show the best of its new video card.

Tom's Hardware had a pretty favorable opinion. Article

Stop comparing Intels high end cpu's, nobody buys those, they are 3x the price for a 5-10% performance hit. Unless, you like to spend money. (-;

AMD 2600+ won over the Intel 2.5 in Quake3 by 5% at lower resolutions, and Tied at 1600x1200. (Quake 3 allways shows Intel as faster, but only by 2-5%)

If you notice, half the programs tend to either favor Intel or AMD. The reason is.... The programs are compiled with either SSE2 or AMDnow+ which makes a good 10% performance improvement.

Guess what, if you use opensource software, you can compile with either! Even GCC3.2 is around 12-15% improvement when compiling for with AMD flags, and its very noticeable. Im sure SSE2 will give the same performance for Intel...

Check out toms SciSoft Sandra benchmarks, which takes a CPU, and uses it most optimial settings, and then rates the CPU.

CPU Bench = Winner AMD
MultiMedia = Winner AMD
Memory = Winner Intel

Tom likes to say, this doesnt represent true performance, but if you notice when he looks at Production/Media products with AMD optimizations, they are faster. Mp3 encoding, and 3D Rendering is faster on the AMD, WHEN they use AMD optimizations, or same rating Intel without Intel optimzations.

Its upto you, AMD gives the same performace for better price. And AMD has more affordable dual systems, which Intel dropped (big mistake, imho). If your a power user doing production/media work, a Dual AMD will be a very cost effective powerhouse. (Myself, I was dual Intels till AMD 2000+ rating, and I miss the dual cpu and the absent of pausing when multitasking, but the FPS in games is nice...)

Man, keep pumping those fast cpus/gfx cards out, I love it!

Myth/rumor: The Athlon XP is a furnace of unimaginable heat! I'm getting a Pentium IV! Even though they are slower and more expensive, at least they won't dim the lights then melt them!

The fastest Athlon XP chips dissipate less than 5% more heat than the fastest Pentium IV chips. They can, however, handle more heat before cooking.

Myth/rumor: Tom's Hardware guide is "more objectvice" or even "Tom's Hardware guide is reliable"
I can't believe I read this, even in a Slashdot comment.
Tom's Hardware Guide is infamous among forums such as those at StorageReview.com and among people that actually know what they are talking about for being little more than a hardware review tabloid. Read the reviews! They come to illogical conclusions and sensationalize most of their reviews.
Read the Athlon review in question:
This is AMD's admission that the previous performance scale was set too high, especially when it came to the higher clock speeds.
Umm... Could it be that because the CPU is advancing where the other components such as memory and FSB are not, that it is possible that AMD added another 66MHz to make sure the rating system was still accurate? It isn't like system performance scales linearly with CPU speed when everything else sits still. Whoever thinks that Tom's Hardware is a good place to get hardware reviews doesn't have a clue about hardware!
Read Tom's glorious review of the KT266a vs the Nforce where despite there being less than a 5% difference between the chipsets and despite the Nforce outperforming every one of the many KT266a that outnumber it greatly in some tests, their "conclusion" was Conclusion: KT266A Trounces nForce 420D - Soltek is Front-runner
Tom's has had some good reviews, and most of the reviews BY TOM HIMSELF are pretty good, but most of the reviews are from his editors, and the proof is in the reviews--they are making Tom's Hardware more of a tabloid than a legit hardware review site, riding on the reputation that Tom made for the site years ago. I know, I was once an avid Tom's reader and am disgusted how the once clear and thoughtful reviews have turned into manic drivel.
If you want reviews that are actually well thought out, intelligent, and have sane conclusions based on mere facts, try Ace's Hardware, Ars Technica, and Anandtech.
Ace's Hardware reviews are clearly the best and most researched, but they are few and far between. Want an excellent review of current and future memory technologies written with the help of actual engineers? Read Ace's Hardware.
Ars rarely has hardware reviews, but when they do the reviews are good.
Anandtech is a good all-around major review site that as far as I can tell has never been biased, but is a little bit too PC for me. (that's Politically Correct, not the other one)

Is Tom's biased? Read the reviews! They aren't biased in a classic sense as far as I can tell, that is, they don't "always favor Intel" or "Always favor AMD"; rather they are often biased against one or the other. They will post stories that are clearly opinionated bullshit from ignorant tech writers that tend to have a bias against one or ther other. This is a mystery to me as they surely piss off both AMD and Intel all the time, and don't make any friends in the process. Overall, I wouldn't say that bias is a big problem at Tom's Hardware as much as stupid technical writers that don't know what they are talking about is a problem.
Want more examples? Point me to a review at Tom's and I'll tell you what's wrong with it (if there is anything wrong with that particular one)

At Tom's--read the reviews by Tom, but everyone else is not trustworthy.

Myth/rumor:
When you hold a seashell up to your ear, you can hear the sea.
Fact: You can hear the same sound reflections by holding a drinking cup up to your ear. It has nothing to do with the ocean. The question is, if you hold a Unix shell up to your ear, can you hear the C?

According to Toms, it is cheaper.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q3/020821/athlon xp-10.html

Maybe it is just me, but it seems like AMD has been struggling for some time to increase the clock speed, but Intel has been jacking their speeds up at will. AMD's little trick with adding the 9th layer has bought them some time, but Intel plans to release a 3 GHz P4 by the end of the year.

Memory bandwidth is still what is killing AMD. Intel's 533 MHz FSB (well, quad pumped 133 MHz) helps them out a lot.

According to Toms Hardware Guide, the Athlon performance is severly reduced by VIAs bad memory handling.

Now wouldn't it be a good investment for AMD to help VIA getting an improved memory handling? Given that most Athlons are used with VIA chipsets, it would make Athlons perform much better, and VIA probably wouldn't be opposed to free help.

Your problem is most likely just that your CPU cooler sucks.
I also have an XP 1800+ and my core temperature has never exceeded 45C (== 113F). A good, properly installed, cooler with a copper plate on the bottom would probably solve your problems. As for the XP 2600+, look at what Tom has to say.

Not to mention, that if you look at the comparison here you see that AMD is kicking out a chip which as 1/3 fewer transistors, and just over half the size of Intel's P4, yet is faster. I understand Intel is supposedly gearing up for higher clock speeds or multiprocessing or what have your, but still it is impressive that AMD is besting Intel with a chip which has 1/3 less transistors and is half as big. They must be doing something right.

Mr. Pabst has a review too.

Wait about 6 more days until the Pentium IV 2.8Ghz comes out....

2.8Ghz...my first computer didn't have that many MHz

All my hardcore AMD convert friends were starting to get pissed when AMD was slacking behind, so they said they were going to go P4.

Thank God I can rub it back in their faces again. Hopefully Toms Hardware will have a benchmark comparason before the day's over :)

Hallelujah!

Anandtech has some alternative review links over here including the more in-depth (and perhaps more objective?) review, at Tom's.

Yeah, that was indeed very very cheap. I don't understand why Slashdot should post a link to a site like this anyway. Clearly the editor has no knowledge about this matter and thought he had a good story, or something. There's few hardware sites that actually give some real information, and among them are Tom's Hardware and AnandTech.

Hammer is still kind of far away. Check out the new Thoroughbred "B" core, the XP 2600+ over at THG. Overclockable to 2880MHz (3100+)!

• Lameness filters (It blocks a lot of legitmate posts)
  
• Unnessary posting delays. Hasnt taco learned to touch type? A lot of posts are typed in less than 20 seconds and it is a ANNOYING DELAY! 2 minute ban? Come on, so some are faster then others, big deal, some people have more to say than others
  
• Broken moderation system, The whole point is to sort the gems from the crap, yet a lot of posts designed to make a LIVELY DISCUSSION are MODERATED as flamebait! Come on, not everyone likes X, but just because some one bashes it dosent mean its Flamebait. Flame bait is more useful for DIRECT INSULTS and not legitmate discussions.
  

• Crapfloods, a meaningless flood of random letters or text, which the lameness filter does a crappy job at trying to stop, besides trolls have written tools using the opensource slashcode to generate crapfloods which bypass the filter
• Links to offensive websites, the most common one is known a http://www.goatse.cx, a awful site which shows a bleeding anus being stretched on the front page. Trolls sneak these links in by posting messages that look legitimate, but infact are sneaky redirects to the site. Common examples include rd.yahoo.com, www.linux-kernel.tk, goatsex.cjb.net, and googles "Im feeling lucky".
• Trying to break slashdot, this is actually a good thing, as it helps test slashdot for bugs. Famous examples include the goatse.cx javascript pop-up, the pagewidening post and the browser crashing post!
  

Watercooling is really cool but still too expensive if you want more than the basics.

If your cooling fluid is hotter than your CPU, it's not cooling anymore, so you have a big problem (actually, the temperature of the CPU will just raise until either it melts or it's hotter enough than your cooling fluid to create a new thermal equilibrium).

Not if you own an Intel CPU...
(hint: look at the second picture)

well, yes and no.

Sure the P4 does bench significantly higher on some applications, particularly the ones that were compiled utilizing the intel(r) compiler and optimized for intel(r) processing. You'll see as you dredge through the benchmarks, things specifically engineered for the P4 run very well, blowing the doors off the other processors, but the P4 does generally trail the pack MHZ/MHZ (even if you use the real MHZ of the athalon) for apps not designed specifically for it. (nearly anything the average user would use)

for the proof (and the pudding) see the following links comparing the processors at DIVX encodeing, quake, kernel compilation, floating point and work per clock cycle comparisons.
Toms Hardware Benchmark including MPEG 4 Encoding Make sure you check our the Clock For Clock Comparison

as far as drives, that's a whole nuther independant problem, followed closely by bus speed, ATA Spec, memory speed and if a $25 GPU can do more math than a CPU, why send math all day to a $500 processor?

out with the old --> in with the new

Looking at Toms Hardware chart, Rating a AMD 2400+ vs a Intel 2.4ghz, the AMD is faster in almost all benchmarks. Tom messed up when he compared a 2100+ vs a 2400. AMD's system shows that its processor is faster at its rating level than Intel ghz rating . Even Toms Benchmarks show this.

Thou, I do like the number of benchmarks Tom uses, lame, quake, scisoft sandra, pcmark, sysmark, specview, (I wish he would use madonion also).. But trying not to repeat a few posts, when an application is compiled towards the cpu, it will be faster. Look at Flaskmpg, AMD compiled version showed an incredible speed up. Same with GCC 3.2 (check the changes), they said an average of 8.7 (with 2.6 or something from 2.95) so thats around a 11+ percent increase, Average! 3DNOW or SSE2 Optimzation really makes a big difference on bechmarks, programs should support both.

Cant wait to see what happens when AMD starts its 3000+ chips, and the 64bit hammer comes out. :)

Looking at Toms Hardware chart, Rating a AMD 2400+ vs a Intel 2.4ghz, the AMD is faster in almost all benchmarks. Tom messed up when he compared a 2100+ vs a 2400. AMD's system shows that its processor is faster at its rating level than Intel ghz rating . Even Toms Benchmarks show this.

Thou, I do like the number of benchmarks Tom uses, lame, quake, scisoft sandra, pcmark, sysmark, specview, (I wish he would use madonion also).. But trying not to repeat a few posts, when an application is compiled towards the cpu, it will be faster. Look at Flaskmpg, AMD compiled version showed an incredible speed up. Same with GCC 3.2 (check the changes), they said an average of 8.7 (with 2.6 or something from 2.95) so thats around a 11+ percent increase, Average! 3DNOW or SSE2 Optimzation really makes a big difference on bechmarks, programs should support both.

Cant wait to see what happens when AMD starts its 3000+ chips, and the 64bit hammer comes out. :)

The complaint alleges that "the Pentium 4 is less powerful and slower than the Pentium III and/or the AMD Athlon."

The article later states that benchmarks would be more reliable. However, I've seen some benchmarks saying that the Athlon is a lot slower than the P4 (at least on Tom's Hardware).. Of course, this is comparing the P4 2400 vs. the Athlon XP 2100. Article here.

Tom's hardware mentions that you still get more processer power for your money, but it concludes that Intel is faster (at least in this comparison).

I doth quote:
"In the last "AMD vs. Intel" comparison, the Athlon XP 2100+ took the leading position by a nose, but now, the Pentium 4/2400 easily overtakes its arch rival. Meanwhile, you should keep in mind that that the P4 has a 666 MHz core clock advantage over the Athlon XP. "

So "whats up" with this article? Did the plaintiffs read this before they filed the lawsuit?? Is Tom's Hardware just another victim of the megahertz marketing machine? (Actually, the tests would seem to indicate no). By the way, I'd love to see the plantiffs win, because I get really sick of the megahertz crap that they ramrod down everyones throat. Not to mention, any computer illiterate person knows that "Intel is better" because of this.

At any rate, I don't really think benchmarks are the answer- everyone knows you can make a benchmark say whatever you want (see for instance the Pet Shop application debate w/ Java vs. .NET)

when Mr. Tom underclocked the P4 to see how it matched up against an Athlon or P3 with the same Ghz. It wasn't a pretty picture for the P4. You'll have to go look at the archives for fun though. It's a nice laugh!

tomshardware als has some pages about Quakecon 2002.

Especially interesting is JC's keynote in which he, among other things, mentions that they will make special backends for nVIDIA/ATI/3DLabs chips but most likely not for Matrox/S3 chips!

gratuitous link to Toms Hardware who are covering the QuakeCon for those who haven't been there yet.

They have info on the first 2 days so far (link is to day 1).

• Lameness filters (It blocks a lot of legitmate posts)
  
• Unnessary posting delays. Hasnt taco learned to touch type? A lot of posts are typed in less than 20 seconds and it is a ANNOYING DELAY! 2 minute ban? Come on, so some are faster then others, big deal, some people have more to say than others
  
• Broken moderation system, The whole point is to sort the gems from the crap, yet a lot of posts designed to make a LIVELY DISCUSSION are MODERATED as flamebait! Come on, not everyone likes X, but just because some one bashes it dosent mean its Flamebait. Flame bait is more useful for DIRECT INSULTS and not legitmate discussions.
  

• Crapfloods, a meaningless flood of random letters or text, which the lameness filter does a crappy job at trying to stop, besides trolls have written tools using the opensource slashcode to generate crapfloods which bypass the filter
• Links to offensive websites, the most common one is known a http://www.goatse.cx, a awful site which shows a bleeding anus being stretched on the front page. Trolls sneak these links in by posting messages that look legitimate, but infact are sneaky redirects to the site. Common examples include rd.yahoo.com, www.linux-kernel.tk, goatsex.cjb.net, and googles "Im feeling lucky".
• Trying to break slashdot, this is actually a good thing, as it helps test slashdot for bugs. Famous examples include the goatse.cx javascript pop-up, the pagewidening post and the browser crashing post!
  

I was under the impression there was a newer format that was completely free, but also provided consistently better quality than both WMA and MP3. I read a review of it on Tom's Hardware I'm sure. But can't for the life of me remember the name of it.

-ELf