Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by Vagrant Zero
Intel has not given us a Prescott Pentium 4 to test.
Maybe someone shoud inform the MORONS over at Inq that to properly review an item one must first have it in their possesion. I for one don't buy their 'assurances' that they actually have one. They didn't post any screenshots of the cpu or CPU-Z or anything that might actually lend them some credibilty [overclockers.at posted screenshots galore and those in CPU-Z showed the Prescott to be marginally better than the Northwood].
The machine we tested was stable, but it will be hard, probably impossible to clock these chips at 3.8GHz.
Again, the screenies at overclockers.al clearly show a P4P 3.2 OCed to 4ghz [CPU-Z].
Inq is more of a source for paltry entertainment than anything else these days and for reasons beyond me they've had it out for the new P4 for a while now [heat dissipation problems anyone?]. Maybe they don't like british names?
is it so hard to believe that somebody can have a friend? like, one review site is friends with another review site. one site has signed an NDA and benched a prescott they were given by intel. over a casual talk the numbers were shared. and inq just published them. now that's only one possibility, but we need to open our eyes a bit here. and as for the extra pipelines, the way intel is using them is to allow for a performance hit in order to allow for higher clock speeds. a doubled L2 should easily increase performance atleast 5 to 7%, especially in gaming benchmarks. i mean, look at the standard p4 verse emergency edition. those extra 1.5MBs do wonders. why isn't the prescotts extra .5MB helping? it has to be, just making up for the lost performance by the extra pipelines. until devs can rewrite all their code with SSE3 extensions in it, prescott imo offers zero advantage over northwoods.Originally posted by Vagrant Zero
Granted, but that still doesn't explain how Inq actually reviewed the damned thing without actually...having it.
Originally posted by Vagrant Zero
is it so hard to believe that somebody can have a friend? like, one review site is friends with another review site.
Is it so hard to post screenshots of the CPU or even better yet, screenshots of CPU-Z or ANYTHING actually spitting out those pretty graphs?
CHIP Newsroom and OCers.at did it. Why can't Inq? Are Digital Cameras/the Print Screen Key really THAT expensive? To top it off they didn't even make the slightest mention of this friend, throw us a bloody bone man, is it taiwanese?
Originally posted by mtbaird
why upgrade to that then?
Don't you think that reviewers (not necessarily The Inquirer) have NDA samples of the Prescott yet? Okay, that gives probable cause for the benchmarks to actually be run, and some cause for them to be accurate. What would The Inquirer gain by giving incorrect numbers? Nothing; either they would lose traffic by always spouting BS (which they don't), or they would be wasting their own bandwidth, time, etc. Now there's the possibility that the benchmarks were improperly done, unfairly done, etc. but the chances of them being accurate are fairly good too.Originally posted by pakotlar
do you really the think the INQ would just throw up comlete BS numbers days before the NDA's are lifted? do you know how much that would discredit their site (no matter what their reputation is)? please.
Originally posted by Vagrant Zero
Since when do people do things in their best intrests? MS nearly shot itself in the foot with that MikeRoweSoft debacle. You'll have to forgive me if I don't place faith in the Inq under the guise of 'people do only good things to themselves' reasoning. I just think they're off their bloody rockers. But we'll know in a few days, so it's rather pointless at this point in time.
Originally posted by pakotlar
The conclusion that the inquirer did something that was not in their own best interest does not logically follow from the premise that microsoft did something that was not in their own interest (whether or not this premise is true doesn't matter).
The kind of argument you outline is an invalid inductive argument. It is called a hasty generalization.
A VALID inductive argument can be structured like this:
Vagrant Zero is human. (premise)
Most humans make invalid arguments. (premise)
Therefore:
Vagrant Zero probably made an invalid argument. (conclusion)
Your argument on the other hand can be broken down this way:
A. People sometimes do things that aren't in their best interest.
B. The INQ is an orginization run by people.
Therefore
C. The INQ did something that wasn't in their own best interest.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premises A & B. You could say that: C. The INQ may have done something that wasn't in their own best interest. Then you would be 100% correct, and I would agree. If you said this then I would have to reply: WE WILL SEE IN A FEW DAYS. STOP MAKING LOGICAL FALLACIES, BECAUSE THEY REALLY BOTHER ME.
yeah I've spent way too much time explaining this. point is: could be, we will see.
edit: forgot to add: OWNED
Originally posted by Bar81
It's actually a lesson in logic, not philosophy
Originally posted by laja
If you put aside fanboyism and come out of denial, you'll see that the information provided by the Inq is likely to be correct. Prescott is introduced for cheap 3 Ghz for the masses, as well as for future higher clock speeds. It is NOT introduced to be immediately faster than the Northwood.
For me, the only reason to get a Prescott would be to o/c it to 4.2 Ghz on air. However, that seems unlikely now.
Originally posted by Bar81
Actually, neither you, nor anyone not under NDA knows how the Prescott performs. The big question remains that even if people have the Prescotts in hand do they have the mobo BIOSes to properly recognize and utilize the increased L1 cache? Without knowing that, these "benchmarks" are useless.
Originally posted by old skool
Oh god the denial is getting out of control.
Time and time again we've seen valid benchmarks appear on the web days before the NDA's expires. Why everyone tries so hard not to be let down is a mystery.
Originally posted by Bar81
Well, there you have it; an airtight logical argument...
Originally posted by Bar81
The big question remains that even if people have the Prescotts in hand do they have the mobo BIOSes to properly recognize and utilize the increased L1 cache? Without knowing that, these "benchmarks" are useless.
The conclusion that the inquirer did something that was not in their own best interest does not logically follow from the premise that microsoft did something that was not in their own interest (whether or not this premise is true doesn't matter).
The kind of argument you outline is an invalid inductive argument. It is called a hasty generalization.
A VALID inductive argument can be structured like this:
Vagrant Zero is human. (premise)
Most humans make invalid arguments. (premise)
Therefore:
Vagrant Zero probably made an invalid argument. (conclusion)
Your argument on the other hand can be broken down this way:
A. People sometimes do things that aren't in their best interest.
B. The INQ is an orginization run by people.
Therefore
C. The INQ did something that wasn't in their own best interest.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premises A & B. You could say that: C. The INQ may have done something that wasn't in their own best interest. Then you would be 100% correct, and I would agree. If you said this then I would have to reply: WE WILL SEE IN A FEW DAYS. STOP MAKING LOGICAL FALLACIES, BECAUSE THEY REALLY BOTHER ME.
yeah I've spent way too much time explaining this. point is: could be, we will see.
Originally posted by pakotlar
the 4ghz figure is on a mach II. not too impressive.