Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 20:34:13 12/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2002 at 23:02:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 01, 2002 at 22:39:03, Aaron Gordon wrote: > >>On December 01, 2002 at 22:21:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 01, 2002 at 13:16:51, Aaron Gordon wrote: >>> >>>>Forgot to mention, the 80531 numbers on the CPU are for the OLD northwoods (ie. >>>>the 2.0GHz chip I mentioned). Any sort of P4-3.3-3.6 should have 80532 or 3. >>>>Earlier in one of his other reviews an IDENTICAL chip with identical markings >>>>(except for PC3.3) was shown, and this was the 2GHz (older 80531) P4. >>>> >>>>Anyway, here is the article in question: >>>>http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q3/020909/index.html >>>>Right there on the front page you can see the faked CPU pic. >>> >>>Often the "pic" is not important. Folks want a picture, they get a >>>picture. What does a picture of a microprocessor really tell you? >>>I see this in all sorts of electronic ads and it doesn't cause me any >>>alarm, and it certainly doesn't convince me that they are testing the >>>wrong processor. It convinces me that they simply posted the wrong picture >>>either intentionally due to availability, or unintentionally due to error... >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>ftp://speedycpu.dyndns.org/pub/misc/p4-fake1.jpg - Fake pic >>>>ftp://speedycpu.dyndns.org/pub/misc/p4-fake2.jpg - Pic showing identical pixels >>>>for both 3's with a black square around it. >>>>ftp://speedycpu.dyndns.org/pub/misc/p4-fake3.jpg Wider view so you can see the >>>>black square better (where it was actually cut&pasted) >>>> >>>>Again, if anyone thinks Tomshardware is the only one bought & paid for by Intel >>>>*OR* the only one faking reviews you are sadly mistaken. >> >>Hyatt, it's not just the pictures. Tomshardware has faked benchmark results. His >>results are definitely NOT to be trusted. Also regarding your last post about >>the picture. If a hardware page can't even get the picture right what makes you >>think they have the intelligence to do proper tests? Makes you wonder. ;) > > >Doesn't make _me_ wonder at all. Perhaps they had a prototype chip that was >not stamped with any sort of identifier at the time... I can think of several >reasons, none of which would discredit text. > >Only "children" pay more attention to the pictures than to the words written, >so most of us wouldn't consider that a big deal. I personally don't pay much >attention to photos of motherboards, chipsets, processors, etc. I consider it >a high-bandwidth waste of time... Actually I noticed it because I have good eyesight. You can just glance over the picture and notice the dicoloration and similarity in the pixels. After noticing this I decided to take a closer look. Also, where did I say I look more at the pictures than the words? No where eh? Hmm.. wonder where that came from. ;) As for the remark about "children". It's wise to study as much as you can about everything. Specifications on chips, boards, etc. Board layouts, cpu steppings and other things. Including pictures of things. For example. Some people prefer a latching system on the sockets that are parallel to the pci slots. Why is this? Modern heatsink/fans are rather tall. If the socket is placed so that the latching mechanism is in the vertical position you cannot get a screwdriver up there because the power supply is in the way. With it parallel to the pci slots it can be easily removed (you don't even have to remove the motherboard). What about the position of the ram slots? Are they positioned high enough to where your hard drives hit them? This is another thing to consider. Also.. where are the IDE connectors? Top, mid, or lower portion of the board? This is also a factor when you get into the taller cases with CDROMs mounted up in the higher bays. The IDE cables may not reach. How can you find these things out without looking at the PICTURES?
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.