Why some people are bashing HardOCP review about Phenom II ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Exactly.Also if you go by the review of the board they used for the tri SLI testing with Phenom II,you will see it was packed with odd results (tested with phenom I) and it underperformed miserably,compared to other AMD boards.Yet Kyle decides to use this particular board for Phenom II SLI tests even though his own initial review of the same board stated the board had plethora of issues with performance across the board :shakes:

---

like i said before there are several better boards than the MSI but he chose to test with it thats his poor decision. now i'm sure he has seen about 100 threads calling him a bloody moron maybe he will take the hint and let someone else do the review or redo the one he screwed up.


how he couldnt figure out 1066 ram on TWO AMD mobo's is beyond me. :banana::banana::banana::banana: i made some garbage XMS2 800 run 1066 with 4 dimms filled.

i think if he wants to review things it should be intel only for him and he should let people who know what they are doing clock up the AMD's


one good note on the review it proved even a moron with a garbage mobo can get 3.8ghz out of phenom II albiet at .1v+ over what it took everyone else :rofl:

I too found the [H] review to be total crap. I used to go to the website just for an alternate opinion but this review has done it for me. Kyle and company are simply Intel biased and there is no discussion there.

I remember when Xtremesystems started there was a HUGE flap about some guys getting banned from the [H] forums for questioning some benches that were changed on the main page. Kyle and company denied it and the flame wars ensued.

I have been lurking here for years and posted some in the early days but I never really had the hardware to compete and simply reveled in the success of people like Oppainter and Mr. Icee and way to many other people to mention. Anyone remember Icrontic, AMDMB (until Kyle perverted them to PCper)?


Hey [H] go F$&k yourself, oh yea... you are doing that already!


pfoot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfoot

Anyone remember Icrontic, AMDMB (until Kyle perverted them to PCper)?


Hey [H] go F$&k yourself, oh yea... you are doing that already!


pfoot

---

I was not aware that Kyle was involved in that name change. I was on AMDMB pretty early (nF2 days)...but I thought they became PCPer right around the release of the Conroe?

well kyle couldnt get his phenom I systems to run DDR1066 speeds either, ever. he simply isnt worthy of reviewing CPU's

"I was not aware that Kyle was involved in that name change. I was on AMDMB pretty early (nF2 days)...but I thought they became PCPer right around the release of the Conroe?"


Yea, Ryan was searching to expand AMDMB and there was some lawsuit involved if I remember correctly, Kyle supported Ryan and the next thing I knew AMDMB became PCper. Some of the old forums we used to frequent are still on PCper. Ryan gave in and "saw the light" and while he and his cohorts are more "fexible" than Kyle and company there is a definite Intel slant to their articles. Basically AMDMB went to the dark side and abandoned us AMD fans. I am sure there are several people on here who remember all that crap. It started in the NF2 days (awesome chipset by the way) when AMD was on the rise.

Regardless it is all behind us now and Xtremesystems is now the only place I know of to get the advice I need to push my current systems (AM3MVP and M3N, both with 9850's, the AMD system uses a 4850 and the Nvidia is a 9600 SLi system, for the kids). Crossfiring as soon as the budget allows.

HOCP You can smell the BS from here.

http://demoncomputers.pwp.blueyonder...f/H_OCP_BS.jpg

I must insist that you guys stop quoting me.

i believe we can take anything HOCP puts out as lower then FUD now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FUGGER

I must insist that you guys stop quoting me.

---

Ahh, but that's so quotable. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by knightwolf654

i believe we can take anything HOCP puts out as lower then FUD now.

---

Was there ever a time when that was NOT true?

Alright, I've got the [H] bashing out of my system for the day. I can go on about my business. Thanks, guys. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdawall

one good note on the review it proved even a moron with a garbage mobo can get 3.8ghz out of phenom II albiet at .1v+ over what it took everyone else

---

^^^This = laffola

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dean

Ahh, but that's so quotable. :(

Was there ever a time when that was NOT true?

Alright, I've got the [H] bashing out of my system for the day. I can go on about my business. Thanks, guys. :)

---

Dude you just quoted him right there :stick:



That said, we bash [H] because it just seems like the right thing to do.

Oh Yay, this threads back to life :down:

It looks like Kyle flipped and now he's loving the X3 720 that just came out.
He gave it the Gold Award.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck

Oh Yay, this threads back to life :down:

---

And by whining that it's back to life you just bumped it. :clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clutch442

It looks like Kyle flipped and now he's loving the X3 720 that just came out.
He gave it the Gold Award.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==

---

you know for some reason AMD's chips seem to be running alot better in this review :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clutch442

It looks like Kyle flipped and now he's loving the X3 720 that just came out.
He gave it the Gold Award.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==

---

still after seeing his last review and hearing about how he is and acts everything on that site means nothing to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

still after seeing his last review and hearing about how he is and acts everything on that site means nothing to me.

---

anyone see some kind of issue here?

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images...Qhj1eq_4_1.gif http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images...CiVG5M_3_1.gif

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images...Qhj1eq_4_2.gif http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images...CiVG5M_3_2.gif

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images...Qhj1eq_4_3.gif http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images...CiVG5M_3_3.gif


like IDK the new phenom with albeit faster ram but less cache,lower NB and HT clocks beating the same clocked P2 940.


now i'm no expert but tests have been done already to show very very small gains with DDR3 on AMD

yes the results are much better in this review than the first phenom II review. when in mads321's review it was showing maybe 1% with ddr3. theres no doubt that either major system changes were made or the results were tampered with. lol triple core running at 2.8ghz is only one second slower than a quad running at 3.2ghz with ddr2 in win rar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

yes the results are much better in this review than the first phenom II review. when in mads321's review it was showing maybe 1% with ddr3. theres no doubt that either major system changes were made or the results were tampered with. lol triple core running at 2.8ghz is only one second slower than a quad running at 3.2ghz with ddr2 in win rar.

---

i noticed that to hmmm funny how this is happening but then again he ran 2GB of DDR800 in the 1st review and 4GB of DDR1600 in the second :down:

Ok guys ,, I did find this tread very funny and amusing :p: A few lines with results and then a few hundered with ba:banana::banana::banana::banana:astic results.

lets not be hate/ other forums now. We all know we dont have to view other forums .If you see something thats not to your likin post the diferences in a decent way.

I do like to see what other forums write on phenom and from what ive seen ( We can be more helpfull by pointing them in the correct direction) IE, show them how to Oc a New PhenomI/II rig better.) Yes show them how to get the Most of a CPU ,Especially Phenom.

We all know Phenom is not easy to tweak like a Intel Part. Most sites play around for a little and dont come near the results we have already had with Phenom I/II .

Other sites infact need to take more time to learn Phenom II. Its that simple.


Every one has a opinion to share ,, id rather help some one then to tell some one how much they fubared results or didnt take the time to Learn Phenom like they did Intel.

Most of the best Phenom threads ive read have come from here. Lets keep civlized and not bash so much .

"some sites need to take time to learn PhenomI/II and then the results will be by far better for us all".

No im not sticking up for anyone, I just want people to realize bashing gets you know where fast.


gOtVolTage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gOtVoltage

Ok guys ,, I did find this tread very funny and amusing :p: A few lines with results and then a few hundered with ba:banana::banana::banana::banana:astic results.

lets not be hate/ other forums now. We all know we dont have to view other forums .If you see something thats not to your likin post the diferences in a decent way.

I do like to see what other forums write on phenom and from what ive seen ( We can be more helpfull by pointing them in the correct direction) IE, show them how to Oc a New PhenomI/II rig better.) Yes show them how to get the Most of a CPU ,Especially Phenom.

We all know Phenom is not easy to tweak like a Intel Part. Most sites play around for a little and dont come near the results we have already had with Phenom I/II .

Other sites infact need to take more time to learn Phenom II. Its that simple.


Every one has a opinion to share ,, id rather help some one then to tell some one how much they fubared results or didnt take the time to Learn Phenom like they did Intel.

Most of the best Phenom threads ive read have come from here. Lets keep civlized and not bash so much .

"some sites need to take time to learn PhenomI/II and then the results will be by far better for us all".

No im not sticking up for anyone, I just want people to realize bashing gets you know where fast.


gOtVolTage

---

only issue is that he has a reviewer that can and does have knowledge with AMD why not let him do the review of the cpu he already knows how to clock


but i agree phenom's are not the easiest took me an hour to hit the max on my celeron's and dozen other chips. took a week to find the max on my 945ES about the same with my old 9500 and 7750BE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gOtVoltage

Ok guys ,, I did find this tread very funny and amusing :p: A few lines with results and then a few hundered with ba:banana::banana::banana::banana:astic results.

lets not be hate/ other forums now. We all know we dont have to view other forums .If you see something thats not to your likin post the diferences in a decent way.

I do like to see what other forums write on phenom and from what ive seen ( We can be more helpfull by pointing them in the correct direction) IE, show them how to Oc a New PhenomI/II rig better.) Yes show them how to get the Most of a CPU ,Especially Phenom.

We all know Phenom is not easy to tweak like a Intel Part. Most sites play around for a little and dont come near the results we have already had with Phenom I/II .

Other sites infact need to take more time to learn Phenom II. Its that simple.


Every one has a opinion to share ,, id rather help some one then to tell some one how much they fubared results or didnt take the time to Learn Phenom like they did Intel.

Most of the best Phenom threads ive read have come from here. Lets keep civlized and not bash so much .

"some sites need to take time to learn PhenomI/II and then the results will be by far better for us all".

No im not sticking up for anyone, I just want people to realize bashing gets you know where fast.


gOtVolTage

---

The problem isnt the fact that we all know to visit different review sites, but the fact that people tried to point out his shortcomings in his system setup/ review. In fact it was done very politely in the beginning, but he lashed out at them like a twelve year old. That is the reason we keep hammering him and his review.

I managed to read it right before I bought my 940, for $260 with free shipping. Then when I got my 940 and got ready to open the box, I thoguht about it again, then opened the box, dropped in a new CPU, booted, overclocked and smiled.

Average 10% clock efficency boost from my 9850BE, and no other upgrade required, almost a 3.9Ghz clock stable through 24/7 of F@H beatings, low load temps, and a resale on my old processor of almost 70% of orginal value? Why buy Intel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raiderman

The problem isnt the fact that we all know to visit different review sites, but the fact that people tried to point out his shortcomings in his system setup/ review. In fact it was done very politely in the beginning, but he lashed out at them like a twelve year old. That is the reason we keep hammering him and his review.

---

Understandable by all means,,:D Hopefully in the future some more forums will really take the cake(indstead of play with the frosting) and learn Phenom for what it has to offer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steevo

I managed to read it right before I bought my 940, for $260 with free shipping. Then when I got my 940 and got ready to open the box, I thoguht about it again, then opened the box, dropped in a new CPU, booted, overclocked and smiled.

Average 10% clock efficency boost from my 9850BE, and no other upgrade required, almost a 3.9Ghz clock stable through 24/7 of F@H beatings, low load temps, and a resale on my old processor of almost 70% of orginal value? Why buy Intel?

---

Its amazing how a stepping change from B3 to C2 ( moped to a SuperBike) for overclockbles and Clock for clock speed makes me smile.

Haaa to think,,my first B2 is flintstone years apart in technology.

Kyle's been a d-bag since time immemorial. Once when I was either 12 or 13 (I'm twice that old now) I sent him an e-mail (via their e-mail us link they had on the review page) about how one of their reviews totally missed the point with regards to video processing in a GPU, etc.

I got back a delightful insult-filled e-mail about how I should have e-mailed the author of the article instead of e-mailing him when he's the jackass who decided to put a giant e-mail us link that sent mail to him on the review page.

While I'm on a Kyle/HardOCP rant here, those video card benchmarks where every card is run with different settings is the friggin' stupidest thing I've ever seen in the world. Why do they even bother putting charts up if they're gonna mess with the settings until every card is giving the same FPS? It'd be one thing if they gave playable settings for each card and ALSO benchmarked them with the same settings to show relative processing power, but just showing charts where 10 video cards are all at the same line is the biggest waste of time in the world. Because seriously, I'm sure readers get SOOO much info out of seeing 10 differently colored lines overlaid on top of each other. Nice waste of hosting bandwidth.

At any rate, Phenom II is obviously a "loser" for people building new systems, but taking price and upgradability into account there's places where it makes a lot of sense (like my unfortunate friend who got suckered into buying a Phenom system for way too much money at the Circuit City liquidation). And it would have made a lot more sense to use components you'd actually see in a mid-priced system, not crippling the Phenom II with DDR800 (seriously pathetic for anybody who runs a hardware review site), etc.

While I do agree that their "playable settings" are too subjective, given that they its not really consistent standard, it is FAR better than the canned crap that flies around on most sites. Most sites do apples to apples only - which is great and all EXCEPT if you don't use those EXACT settings?

I rarely use AA b/c I demand a VERY high min and avg FPS. E.g. L4D, I rarely see this benched with 0 AA, b/c everyone thinks running 60fps or lower avg FPS, in a source game, is supposed to be a good idea. I'm more accustomed to 80-90FPS as the worst case scenarios (blame my CS1.6 and CS:S background), and that definitely isn't happening at 1920x1200 if your AA is jacked up. However, since most websites don't bother figuring how well each GPU handles differing amounts of AA/AF in the first place, good luck figuring that out.

[H] remains the only site out there that has BOTH the typical Apples to Apples AND a "playable" settings test. I think if they set some basic guidelines for their playable section (e.g. 60FPS, 100FPS, max FPS) it'd be nice, but that's an incredible amount of work to demand from them.

I suppose if you yourself have the time and money to do something like that, more power to you. But if you can't, and choose instead to just criticize while never having had to review several GPU cards and update the results everytime a new review is released?

Well it just reaks of a typical arm-chair, Monday morning quarterback.

I was also quite surprised with the change of heart that HardOCP had with their AM3/DDR3 review. I'm rather unwilling to be involved in this whole conflict, but I have to agree with HardOCP's bottom line:

"The X3 720 Black Edition looks to be a great enthusiast CPU for those on a budget that are looking for some very solid performance in the gaming arena".

Based on several reviews, I'm actually quite seriously considering that chip for my forthcoming gaming-on-a-budget rig.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mav451

While I do agree that their "playable settings" are too subjective, given that they its not really consistent standard, it is FAR better than the canned crap that flies around on most sites. Most sites do apples to apples only - which is great and all EXCEPT if you don't use those EXACT settings?

I rarely use AA b/c I demand a VERY high min and avg FPS. E.g. L4D, I rarely see this benched with 0 AA, b/c everyone thinks running 60fps or lower avg FPS, in a source game, is supposed to be a good idea. I'm more accustomed to 80-90FPS as the worst case scenarios (blame my CS1.6 and CS:S background), and that definitely isn't happening at 1920x1200 if your AA is jacked up. However, since most websites don't bother figuring how well each GPU handles differing amounts of AA/AF in the first place, good luck figuring that out.

[H] remains the only site out there that has BOTH the typical Apples to Apples AND a "playable" settings test. I think if they set some basic guidelines for their playable section (e.g. 60FPS, 100FPS, max FPS) it'd be nice, but that's an incredible amount of work to demand from them.

I suppose if you yourself have the time and money to do something like that, more power to you. But if you can't, and choose instead to just criticize while never having had to review several GPU cards and update the results everytime a new review is released?

Well it just reaks of a typical arm-chair, Monday morning quarterback.

---

I don't mind their video card reviews but they do have to be read along with other ones to get a full picture. Theirs does give you a good idea of which cards handle which quality settings the best. The guy above is right though, why on earth would you give a graph comparing cards using different settings? The apples to apples graph makes sense, but the different settings graph? :shrug: