Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: vanshardware.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to vanshardware.com.

Comments · 56

  1. Re:Any practical reasons? by 13Echo · · Score: 2 · on Linux on Xbox One Step Closer?

    The X-Box does indeed have a Mobile Celeron CPU.

    Van's Hardware Dissects the X-Box

  2. Optimized for mobile ?? by WDemon · · Score: 1 · on AMD Introduces the Athlon XP 2200+

    I would say that frequency headroom shouldn't be judged by these early shipments. AMD has a history of "slow" starts - historicaly due to lesser (financial) commitment to process switches.

    Over at Van's Hardware there seam to be some suggestions, that these early Thouroughbreds are optimized for low power dissipation (ie for mobile).

  3. Re:HardOCP have their review up by yivi · · Score: 1 · on Another Xbox Anatomy Lesson

    Also Vans Hardware opened the box, and is showing its entrails.

    Besides, isn't /.ted yet.

  4. Re:I still wouldnt get an Athlon or any AMD chip. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative · on AMD And THG update
    VIA are not the only AMD chipset maker. SiS, ALi and nVidia also provide quality AMD chipsets, and AMD make their own multi-processor chipset as well. These other chipsets all appear to be very capable, more stable, etc than the VIA solution.

    There is no stability problems for the AMD CPUs. RDRAM is prohibitively expensive. SSE2 is hardly supported anywhere - Hammer will support them. DDR has much better bandwidth utilisation specs than RDRAM, it can use 70% of the available bandwidth whilst RDRAM can only use 45% of the theoretical bandwidth.

    Wooo, a 10% overclock. That is nothing to should about. I would worry about the cooling mechanism that has to be bolted onto the board, bending the board in the process. Looks at VansHardware.com for some more information about the problems with the Intel P4 and chipsets.

  5. I don't trust Tom... by UnAmericanPunk · · Score: 5, Insightful · on The Report of My Thermal Death Have Been...

    I watched this video and found it quite interesting. One difference between this video and tom's video was the motherboard and chipset that was used, that could have something to do with the different outcomes. Tom used some motherboard I've never even seen before, I had to hunt the net to find info about it. The new amd video uses a motherboard with the amd 760 chipset.

    My other issues against tom are the benchmarks that he uses now, compared to what he used to do. Last review I just remember seeing the bapco and quake3 tests. Which is interesting because of all the rumors that bapco and intel are the same company. Read here. Then the quake3 benchmarks... umm, wasn't that what the P4 was optimized for? I remember back when the K7's first came out and tom threw a barrage of tests at it... a good FPU one was the 3DStudio one (which I didn't see in the last test).

    Lastly, I remember the massive intel ad banners on the site when Tom did the 2Ghz P4 review...
    So in my eyes, Tom sold out and I don't trust his reviews anymore.

  6. Re:No cheaper than Intel by linzeal · · Score: 1 · on AthlonXP Released

    Um the thunderbird has been shipping do you mean the hammer?