Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel's Pentium 4 3.4GHz Processors Reviewed

Posted by timothy on from the boy-are-my-lips-tired dept.

EconolineCrush writes "In one of the most gratuitous benchmarking indulgences I've seen, Tech Report has tested Intel's new Northwood and Prescott Pentium 4 3.4GHz processors against sixteen competitors ranging from the relatively old school Athlon XP to the opulent Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, with plenty of Athlon 64 action thrown in for good measure. Performance is tested in a wide range of applications, including gaming, rendering, image processing, media encoding, speech recognition, and scientific number crunching. Even if you're not interested in Intel's latest Pentium 4s, the review nicely shows where 18 of the fastest desktop chips from AMD and Intel stack up against each other."

42 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. Speed by Peden · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While all that processor speed is mighty good, who needs top-of-the-line equipment anymore? The new games all rely on the GFX card rather than the CPU. Any suggestions, other than the fact that Intel is keeping up to Moore's law?

    1. Re:Speed by jonjohnson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you end up building your own system, you're right. However, there are still plenty of low-end graphics cards that companies stick into computers just to save another 50 bucks in the manufacturing cycle. When this happens, you still have the "top-of-the-line" graphics chipset, but the board doesn't have its own processor. Without the onboard processor, the CPU does matter.

      I remember a story in Wired a year or two ago that detailed how nvidia's CEO (or was it CTO.. it was a while ago) envisioned most of the workload for the computer on the graphics card, and the main CPU not needing to be very powerful. I wonder what he's thinking nowadays?

    2. Re:Speed by nacturation · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While all that processor speed is mighty good, who needs top-of-the-line equipment anymore? The new games all rely on the GFX card rather than the CPU. Any suggestions, other than the fact that Intel is keeping up to Moore's law?

      Many non-game apps are CPU bound, and speed is always desired in these situations. Examples include rendering, video compression, SETI@Home, etc. Likely you don't need a faster processor, but it doesn't mean that the business world sees it the same way. Heck, maybe some day these processors will power your graphics card too!

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    3. Re:Speed by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Many non-game apps are CPU bound, and speed is always desired in these situations. Examples include rendering, video compression, SETI@Home, etc. Likely you don't need a faster processor, but it doesn't mean that the business world sees it the same way. Heck, maybe some day these processors will power your graphics card too!

      Not to mention, many of the games are CPU-bound because of the minimum specs - you can up the gfx from 640x480x16bit -> 1600x1200x32bit, but there's no setting the AI to "dumb -> average -> smart". I'm sure there's lots of interesting ideas in AI (groups, formations, tactics, responses to movement/sound, distractions etc.) or game world design (i.e. things happen to the world around you, not just what's being rendered on the screen) that'd love to have more power to throw at it.

      Kjella

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Speed by EulerX07 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This doesn't make sense. So you're saying that since some of the computers we can buy will come with a lousy graphic card, there's use for those cpus that costs 750+$?

      How about buying the version of the computer with the 150$ cpu and switching the video card for a 150$ mid-end card from ATI or Nvidia? You'd wipe the floor with the 3.4EE computer with a lousy graphic card, and save 450$.

      And also, how can you have both a "low-end graphic card" and a "top-of-the-line" graphic chipset? No offense, but the more I read your post the less insightful it gets.

    5. Re:Speed by ionpro · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's hardly true any more. Any modern game will allow you to set AI difficulty/AI CPU time, sometimes seperately. For instance, Battlefield (any variant) allows you to set "Overall bot difficulty" and "CPU time given to AI" (5~25%). I'm not entirely sure, but I believe Unreal Tournament 2004 has a similar setting.

    6. Re:Speed by shotfeel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Examples include rendering, video compression,

      And lets not forget the fact that some of us like to listen to our own background music while playing a game on the computer duing the time it takes for our favorited DVD authoring applications to encode the video.

  2. Naming? by Davak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought Intel was killing their label of chips by speeds...

    Davak

  3. Nice In-Place Ad by Davak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Thanks to Corsair for providing us with memory for our testing. If you're looking to tweak out your system to the max and maybe overclock it a little, Corsair's RAM is definitely worth considering.

    Boy... I wonder how much memory Corsair donated for that wonderful little plug.

    I can tolerate Coke planting their product in sit-coms... but I don't think I would appreciate my newscaster saying "Coke is so refreshing" in the middle of a news story.

    Planting an obvious ad in the middle of "journalism" is just wrong.

    Davak

    1. Re:Nice In-Place Ad by nacturation · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Planting an obvious ad in the middle of "journalism" is just wrong.

      I don't see anything wrong about it. Imagine if you ran a tech review site and couldn't afford to equip all your various test machines with gigs of RAM each. Wouldn't you approach a company and ask if they could perhaps donate (or at least loan) you the equipment you needed? And, if they did such a thing, wouldn't it be nice to credit them for helping you out?

      I fail to see how this is a "plant". It would be suspect if this were a review of sound cards and, right in the middle of the article, it said "Hey, your system needs more memory... purchase Corsair RAM today!" then that would be a plant. It would be no different than somebody comparing operating systems and thanking IBM/Dell/whoever for loaning you the equipment to do a side-by-side comparison with realtime parameter tweaking rather than having to tediously reformat a single machine every time you want to test a new config.

      It's the lost art of the professional "thank you".

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  4. Missing 400Mhz....? by inphinity · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Besides this test being ridiculously comprehensive, did anybody else notice the stat differences between the P$ 3.0 Ghz - 3.4 Ghz?

    Or, more precisely, the lack of differences?
    I wonder, is this just an inability of benchmark software to challenge a processor at such a high clock speed, or are these processors actually the same thing with shinier packaging?

    Thoughts?

    1. Re:Missing 400Mhz....? by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Some games (and 3D benchmarks) will be bottle-necked by the video card, leaving the CPU with spare CPU cycles to burn. Also, the benchmark may not require much general processing by the CPU, thus all the burden is pushed over to the video card.

      Case in point. I was playing Warcraft3 on my P4 2.8 (with Radeon 9800 Pro). Though my framerate dropped down some at high resolution with 4x anti-aliasing, my CPU was only taxed at 15%. I noticed this after exit the game and looked at the task manager CPU usage stats. I was rather shocked.

      Basically, if your a gamer, then your better of spending all your cash on a nice 3D card, RAM amount, then CPU ...in that order.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  5. Initial observations by Pidder · · Score: 5, Informative

    A quick glance on the system setups shows that they have used RAM with almost the same CAS-latencies in all the setups. The AMD CPUs benefit from low CAS to a greater extent than the P4. When an Intel fanboy site like Tomshardware wants the p4 to beat the Athlon they usually use very slow ram on the Athlon setup, which is of course overlooked by most consumers.

    1. Re:Initial observations by ThaReetLad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The other thing they do is rely heavily on synthetic benchmarks like PCMark. A little while ago the inquirer ran a story that pointed out that a heavily overclocked p4 running at over 4 GHz got impossible low scores on some synthetic benchmarks. This turned out to be because the windows internal clockspeed counter was just 32bits and there was an integer wraparound. What they failed to notice was that this meant that these so called benchmarks were baseing their scores on the reported clockspeed of the processor, and therefore must have favoured intel.

      --
      You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    2. Re:Initial observations by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative
      I've certainly noticed that people are more or less willing to take for granted that two things are true about AMD processors. One, they do more per cycle. This should be clear, anyway, because they have more functional units and the functional units are more flexible. Also they have the credibility of having built a multitude of RISC designs over the last few years, most of which have had x86 emulators on the front of them of course. Well, and the back, it wouldn't do to fetch and never retire. Anyway Two, they are much cheaper than intel processors. Sadly intel outstripped AMD in terms of bus bandwidth some time ago and AMD is just now catching up again with the processors with integrated memory controllers - Since that is separate from the bandwidth used to the north bridge. It seems that HT should give about 1/2 the performance of the P4's FSB, but since it doesn't have to carry information from the CPU to main memory (FX-53 has a DDR 400 dual channel memory controller, which should be plenty of memory bandwidth for anyone. Of course DMA still has to occur via HT but in most cases this should not be a serious problem. (Using system memory for AGP textures will still be slow, though of course still faster than loading them from disk all the time.)

      So, the hot AMD processor (FX-51) currently beating up on the hot intel processor. The FX-53 is even more destructive (about 10% faster still) and I doubt that it will be substantially more expensive than the P4 EE 3.2GHz 2MB cache, which is already defeated in the benchmarks by the FX-51.

      So yes, with the release of the Hammer-core processors, it is unusual for intel to be able to keep up with AMD these days - As it was with the Athlon before it. Remember when the Athlon's double-pumped bus made it two or three times as fast (in terms of FSB) as the intel processors? And how intel processors had less cache, and typically slower cache? Since the release of the K6 intel has been running scared, even in spite of the K6's many flaws. The Athlon was the real sign that AMD was ready to compete with everyone, that's really an amazingly slick chip and there's a multiprocessor version, so AMD targeted basically every space below supercomputing with that processor, and had good success with sales nearly everywhere. (Actually the K6 sold quite a few units also.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. Heat by shawkin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With the case open, this thing runs at 178 degrees. In a practical sense, all the other benchmarks are less important.

    It is not going to be easy to cool. It is not likely to be suitable for clustered processing. It is not likely to be particularly reliable.

    This article illustrates the diminishing returns of the current Intel CPU architecture and processes. Soon, both AMD and Intel will be forced to explore new designs similar to the IBM Power 5.

    Given the time, effort and money involved in developing a new CPU architecture, the near and medium term future may lie with IBM.

    1. Re:Heat by xeper · · Score: 2, Interesting
      With the case open, this thing runs at 178 degrees. In a practical sense, all the other benchmarks are less important.

      Just wondering: Is the described setup with the case open & lying on its side actually better or worse for cooling?

      With the case closed you have a nice airflow from the frontside fan [1] over the CPU-Cooler to the backside/PSU-Fan adding to overall cooling [2]... OTOH having the case open makes it less likely that the CPU-Cooler tries to cool the CPU with the already heated air from the case...


      [1] If installed but since I noticed that HD temperatures decreased from >40C to ~20-25C just by the gentle blowing of a 7V fan over their cover all my boxes have them...
      [2] Like in my two Via C3 powered, passive cooled boxes :)

      --

      --
      While money can't buy happiness, it certainly lets you choose your own form of misery.
  7. Re:The problem with all these new processors is by beswicks · · Score: 5, Funny

    That is possibly one of the most bizzare comments to be marked interesting, just because a new form factor comes out, it doesn't mean that the processor companies will dump all the current chips.

    True they may have a new package for some of the processors to fit a new slot or modified mb chipset, but that is nothing new, we don't just chuck out all the old work when something new comes along.

    c.

  8. Re:i havent read the article by tttonyyy · · Score: 4, Informative
    does it actually have nay insightfull comments, or things we havent heard of already or is it pretty much like the previous cpu review made:
    This Just IN, NEW CPU FASTER THAN OLD CPU

    Nothing exciting really. Summary is basically this: Amd for 3D games, Intel for MP3 and DivX encoding (and marginally for some scientific software). At the end of the day it all depends what software is running, so there's no clear way to define which is "better" for the masses.

    Nothing changes there, I guess.

    --
    biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
  9. Summary of the article by heironymouscoward · · Score: 4, Informative

    1. AMD64 is better for games
    2. Intel Northwood P4 3.4 is good for general use.
    3. Intel's new Prescott is too hot.
    4. Whatever you buy will be redundant in 2 months.

    Plus ca change, plus ca reste la meme chose.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
  10. Throw some G5s into the mix by oingoboingo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What I'd like to see in a huge multi-CPU benchmark like this are some Apple G5 systems thrown in too. Decent cross-platform tests are hard to find, but given OS X's UNIX underpinnings, it may be possible to come up with a set of tests that are run on x86 Linux and OS X which have an identical code base, and which do not artificiallly advantage one architecture over the other. One thing I've found since switching to OS X about 6 months ago...the Mac community still lacks a really good site which does solid, rigorous benchmarks of Mac hardware/software...and there are a lot of myths and misinformation doing the rounds on various Mac forums (as there are on PC forums too). A well controlled multi-CPU benchmark including some Macs could go a long way to alleviating this.

    1. Re:Throw some G5s into the mix by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 4, Informative
      This site compares Macs to Macs... its sort of useful.

      This site actually has a German G5 vs. Athlon benchmark posted right now.

      Neither one is like Tom's (good or bad)... but its something.

      --
      If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
  11. Pretty poor LinPack performance... by nickovs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Taking the opportunity for a moment to troll, flame bait and be an annoying Apple user, I think it's worth commenting how piss-poor the P4's LinPack performance is. The Apple Xserve G5 gets 4.5 Gigaflops out of each of it's two 2GHz G5 processor when running HPC Linpack, as opposed to the 3.4GHx P4 "Extreme Edition" which peaks at just 1.3 Gigaflops. Anyone looking to do serious scientific calculations rather than just playing Quake should not be using Intel hardware these days; it just doesn't keep up with the PPC G5 for floating point.

    --
    If intelligent life is too complex to evolve on its own, who designed God?
    1. Re:Pretty poor LinPack performance... by maswan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Assuming you stay within the hand-tuned codes that are available. You won't see anything near that performance from compiled code, and that's with a good compiler. I've done some tests myself, and the G5 performes about the same clock-for-clock as the Opteron. And these days, the Opteron clocks a bit higher...

    2. Re:Pretty poor LinPack performance... by jstott · · Score: 3, Informative
      Taking the opportunity for a moment to troll, flame bait and be an annoying Apple user, I think it's worth commenting how piss-poor the P4's LinPack performance is.

      The AltiVec processor on the G5's is a vector coprocessor. If your compiler/library is set up to use it, that's good for a 4-5x increase in floating-point speed. Essentially the CPU does a block of mathematical operations in parallel--Cray mainframes work the same way, only more so. This is different from pipelining in that it's a true parallel operation. I think the AltiVec can do vector integer operations as well, but that won't change the LinPack performance.

      Note too that the boost from a vector processor only works on specific types of floating point operations, most notably matrix math, so it's not a magic cure-all. Also, the data has to be in the right format and loaded into appropriate registers, so it helps to have code written specifically to use vector operations (although a good optimizing compiler can still do a lot of the work for you)

      .

      -JS

      --
      Vanity of vanities, all is vanity...
  12. Scale matters! by IceFox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After reading it I get the following:

    1) If you are doing anything in Lightwave by all means don't use AMD's XP :) There must be some major tweak they are missing.

    2) Encoding type work XP seems to be the best bang for the buck (right now)

    3) I had a difficult time understanding the results because most of the graphs didn't have a scale to go by. Some of them like the games you could figure out that 500fps is twice as fast as the slowest at 250fps, but in either case you didn't care. With lame from the looks of it the slowest was still faster then what I could rip from cd (need to test, but just off the top of my head). Maybe on the larger scale for a particular test all of the cpu's are very close together, but in the view of close up it looks like one is _way_ faster.

    4) With all of the tests there wasn't one compiler test :(

    -Benjamin Meyer

    --
    Do you changes clothes while making the "chee-chee-cha-cha-choh" transformation sound?
  13. Vector processor by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, so far you've made the case for a vector processor, or an add on like AltiVec. How's about making one for a faster CPU?

    --
    Deleted
  14. LaGrande? by slux · · Score: 4, Informative

    Has everyone already completely forgotten about LaGrande?

    The tech sites certainly don't seem to be making much fuss about the fact that Prescott has this technology already in it. I wonder how they can be that unknowing of it. There was this big Extremetech article on LaGrande though.

    Even on Slashdot no-one seems to be bringing it up these days. For me, the benchmarks aren't even worth looking at with the knowledge that these processors are the beginning of the DRM revolution. Seems they're being able to sneak the technology inside every PC just as they've planned it.

    Still, sticking with AMD is going to be just a temporary measure. Is there any talk about integrating DRM into the PowerPC? If not, maybe the next motherboard upgrade could be a Pegasos or one could just go with a Mac.

    1. Re:LaGrande? by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Even on Slashdot no-one seems to be bringing it up these days. For me, the benchmarks aren't even worth looking at with the knowledge that these processors are the beginning of the DRM revolution. Seems they're being able to sneak the technology inside every PC just as they've planned it.

      You bring up an excellent point, and one that I wonder about.

      At some point, the Slashdot/Ars/Tom's crowd and others who are a little more informed will identify the 'last great un-hobbled processor', i.e. the fastest thing you can buy before the Palladium/DRM stuff starts to become baked into the CPUs. Right now it looks like AMD and Intel will both be using some kind of Trusted (ahem) platform and BIOS. A lot of people will buy that processor(s) and then there will be a drop-off. As it is, not too many people get excited about the difference between 3 and 3.4 Ghz... ask yourself, which would you buy: a 'non-trusted' 3Ghz CPU or a DRM'd 3.4ghz?

      Of course the unwashed masses will not know the difference (it makes the interweb go fastar!!!!111!!1)... but the alpha geeks are the ones who pay the premium for the latest gear so AMD/Intel may actually register a hit in sales.

      --
      If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
  15. The parent post is rant and biased. by yudan · · Score: 2, Informative

    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!

  16. Active Cooling for the future by stecoop · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We have come upon a point in processor technology that Active cooling other than passive radiant exchange with active air movement technology (IE cooling block and a noisy fan) will be exceeded very shortly. Running at 178 degrees these guys will require active cooling system such as water, refrigerant. But there is a third type of cooling technology that is micro channel cooling: http://www.cooligy.com/micro_channel_cooling.html I would like to see a rock solid active cooling system implemented and run as well as today's fans or even refrigerators. As more money is invested in the area then we will see more active cooling systems.

  17. That' It. Moores Law is over!!!!! by The+Anointed · · Score: 2, Funny

    When did the 2.0 GH Pentium come out, around August 2001. And now we're reviewing 3.4 GH Pentiums 2.5 years later? Dead!!! Long Live Moores Law.

    --
    "Everyone knows Lenin had to setup a police state," Chomsky
  18. Pitting 64bit, vs 32bit by polyp2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It seems a little dubious to pit a 64 bit processor (Athlon64) against a 32bit one.

    The Athlon64 does surprisingly well in many of the tests, especially when you note that in the majority of benchmarks it is only executing 32bit code. I bet we would see a different story if the Athlon64 was running at its best ability eg running 64bit apps on a 64bit os.

    How difficult would it be to do some benchmarks comparing two identical linux distro's running on the same processor but one compiled for 32bit and the other compiled for 64bit. That might be an interesting comparison.

    Nick

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
  19. AMD wins. by Jexx+Dragon · · Score: 2, Informative
    Not only that, but Intel has confessed that 64-bit extensions now lie dormant in Prescott, ready to be turned on in future versions of the Pentium. This fall, Microsoft will deliver a 64-bit version of Windows, and both AMD and Intel processors will run it.

    Why are the 64-bit extensions disabled? Linux comes in 64-bit now, which clearly means I'll be buying a Athlon 64 over an Intel. Then agian, maybe I'll just go with a four or eight processor Opteron based system. I here the 8088s are good this year too... If any still exist. Of course, I suppose the review caters to gamers who are stuck with Windows (or WineX, which would probably run pretty quick on a Athlon 64-FX).

    Still, I think AMD is in the lead right now, they got the Athlon 64 and Athlon 64-FX out a few months ago and Intel still dosent have one, or... Well they do, but the disabled the 64-bit extensions. Can't forget that they have to use the AMD64 extensions as well.
    --
    I don't have time to comment my code, the program is late already.
  20. AMD64 testing by ValourX · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yet another review that doesn't test in 64-bit mode.

    I don't know why this wasn't deemed Slashdot-worthy, but here's an excellent review of a P4 3.2E versus an Athlon 64 3200+ in both 32-bit *AND* 64-bit mode:

    AMD64 vs. i386 in FreeBSD

    -Jem
  21. compiler comparison by pwagland · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Hmm. Just had a quick browse of the article, and noticed something a little funny. In the Sphinx speech recognition test they compared all of the chips with both the microsoft and the Intel compiler. What was strange about it though was that for every AMD chip the Intel compiler was faster, by up to 4%. However, for 7 out of the 10 intel processors the microsoft compiler produced faster code than the intel compiler!

    Bizzare eh?

  22. Short version: Don't bother! by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 4, Informative

    Note: I'm not trolling, nor am I an AMD zealot.

    Yes, you can't go by raw clockspeed alone, but in this case its close enough. In short, 3.4GHz P4 is THIRTEEN PERCENT faster in raw clockspeed than the 3.0GHz P4. The actual performance increase is less than that. At the same time, BOTH PRICE AND POWER DISSIPATION have gone up by MUCH MORE THAN THIRTEEN PERCENT.

    Bottom line: This is a completely uninteresting processor at the current time.

  23. Unbiased journalism by pwagland · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Now, sure, we don't expect these people to be totally unbiased, but where did they pull this from?:
    The Pentium 4 'E' is an absolute monster in workstation graphics, capturing the top spot in three of the six tests and tying for it in one more. In the other two, the Prescott 3.4GHz is second only to the Athlon 64 FX-53.
    By the way, that test that it tied? It tied it with the Athlon 64 FX-53. But then I guess they wouldn't get their advertising budget if they said:
    The Pentium 4 'E' and Athlon 64 FX-53 are roughly equal in workstation graphics, with the P4E winning three of the six tests the A64 FX-53 winning two, and they tied one test. Overall though there was less than 2% difference in any test.
  24. Re:The problem with all these new processors is by mikis · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is a troll, right?

    "I hate ATX. AT motherboards and cases are bigger, and who needs this fancy PCI and AGP when ISA and VESA are more than enough. Oh, and why replacing AT keyboard and serial mouse with this PS/2 crap?"

    One, stuff is smaller. I prefer large cases with a lot of space for drives and cooling (my current project has twelve case fans).

    You can fit small board in large case. But you can't put large board in small case. Most people DO NOT need big, ugly gray cases now that everything but CD and HDD is integrated on motherboard.

    Two, they are droping PS/2 ports, which I can't live without, since I perfer to leave the USB ports free (even though I rarely use them).

    Most of the new motherboards have at least 6-8 USB ports, and USB hubs are like 5$. So what is the problem?

    but I'll have to get used of flipping it onto the wrong side to pop her open

    Yeah, that will *really* be the problem.

    Four, What is this PCI Express?

    Replacement for both obsolete 32bit 33MHz PCI and AGP. Try fitting two top of the line (AGP) graphics cards on one motherboard.

    Oh, and it is a good way to force you to replace whole machine when you just want to upgrade.

  25. Re:Wait 45 days before buying a new PC by sacremon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The "wait 45 days" is likely in reference to the anticipated released of the 939-pin version of the Athlon 64 FX-53. The present 940 pin version requires registered RAM, which slows it down a bit. The 939-pin version will work with unregistered RAM, allowing it a boost in speed in many applications.

    --
    If you can't beat them, embrace and extend them.
  26. When not to take a review site seriously... by SomeGuyFromCA · · Score: 2, Funny
    The reference to "enough microarchitectural tweaks to kill a horse" was bad enough, but now this:
    We start with memory performance, because these benchmarks are synthetic [...] and not always indicative of real-world performance. They [...], however, [...] present the opportunity to make all sorts of colorful graphs.
    --
    if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
    1. Re:When not to take a review site seriously... by shotfeel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, I tend to take the results more seiously when the tester demonstrates they understand the limitations of the tests used and lays it on the line.