Toms Barton 3000 Article. Absolute ****e.

vk2amv · Feb 10, 2003, 11:57 PM

I just read Toms Article on the Barton 3000+ just to see what they have to say about it. I wasnt really expecting anything worth while but I wasnt expecting the massive errors in specs I saw. I am posting here what I wrote on the Tome hardware forum which is also what I sent in an email to the site. I just thought the people here might be interestered.

I just read toms article on the Barton 3000 going up against a p4 and I am shocked at how many facts that are wrong that a rookie should have picked up. Most anyone on this message board should be able to go through and pick up the errors but I just want to point out the worst ones. These are not in order just the way I write them.

He makes a big thing about how the Barton will only work on motherboards that have a 166Mhz bus but then he says on his overall list that it will work in AMD 750 and 760 chipset boards. Now correct me if I am wrong but the 750 and 760 are STRICTLY 133Mhz BUS chipsets. He also says it can run at 133Mhz memory bus speeds. Now I didnt think it was possible to have the memory running SLOWER than the main bus. Say the BUS at 166Mhz and the memory at 133Mhz. What a stupid thing to put. OH and I may be wrong but I thought the SIS 735 and 745 chipset was also strictly 133Mhz. Though I am not sure on that last one.

Also in his list he has a lot of errors in the Thunderbird specs. He lists the thunderbird as having SSE. Now anyone who even has BASIC CPU knowledge should know the Thunderbird DID NOT have SSE support. Also he limits the memory clock to 166Mhz with a KT400 chipset. Now we all know that with a chipset like that you can easily have the memory at 200Mhz and the main bus at 133Mhz. It is nothing to do with the CPU. He did the same for the Palomino too but not for the T-Bred A which aside form the different micron size is the came chip. He needs to make up his mind.

He got the voltages for the T-Bred A wrong too.

He says that the Thunderbird has the thermal protection with the motherboard logic. This is NOT TRUE. Only the Palomino`s and upwards have the thermal diode protection. That was in one of this sites OWN articles.

He shows the DIE size for the Thunderbird and Palomino as exactly the same when we all know the Palomino is a bigger die because of the added SSE instructions. Plus you can see that just by looking at it anyway.

He has the introduction dates for the Thunderbird core and the Palomino core at the same time when we all know the Thunderbird was introduced when a 650Mhz CPU was standard and the Palomino was introduced when a 1.2gig CPU was standard. Besides the fact that they are a whole generation apart. Also I know the Palomino was introduced later than Q4 1999.

Also on chipsets we know for a fact that the minimum for the T-Bred B IS NOT KT333. It can be as low as a KT133A if it is a 133Mhz Bus version.

Thats all I can think to point out at the moment. I myself am outraged that such a clearly flawed article could even make the light of day. It seems the only thing still any good about toms hardware is the forum. I myself have now lost all trust in any of of the articles posted on toms hardware.
AREA_51

HsuGotaQ · Feb 11, 2003, 12:48 AM

Well thats Tom for you.

vk2amv · Feb 11, 2003, 01:08 AM

Yeah. I knew the site was questionable but I still had a slight bit of trust for some things that were pretty hard to screw up. Now I have no trust. It was a mistake to give it any trust in the first place. AREA_51

vk2amv · Feb 11, 2003, 01:18 AM

Well if they cant get their basic facts right how can you be sure they get the benchies right? AREA_51

blown503 · Feb 11, 2003, 01:54 AM

maybe, just maybe he was smokin some crack when he wrote that artical. Im sure his personal computer uses an via kt 400 chip set with a pentium 2 450 mhz chip over clocked with a bus speed of 457 mhz and hes getting 600 fps in winmark 2007. Im sure hes using an ultra fx leaf blower 5900 nvidia chip set that runs around room temp too.

Vampyromaniac · Feb 13, 2003, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HsuGotaQ
Well thats Tom for you.

Not exactly Tom, it was these fellows: Frank VÃ¶lkel & Bert TÃ¶pelt. (dunno if you implied Tom or THG

)

I must say his staff make errors quite a bit . . . some of it may have to do with the translations, etc, but still . . . too many errors, imo, for a professional site.
I much prefer Anandtech, where Anand himself does the majpr reviews, and each is well written and very professional.
But still, THG has done some good work in the past, and I'll still visit.

Matth · Feb 13, 2003, 03:42 PM

The AMD 750 is strictly a 100FSB SDRAM chipset, not even 133! - it dates back to the SLOT Athlons, though it was also used with Socket A as well.

Feb 10, 2003, 11:57 PM	#1
vk2amv DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 73 Rep Power: 0	Toms Barton 3000 Article. Absolute e. I just read Toms Article on the Barton 3000+ just to see what they have to say about it. I wasnt really expecting anything worth while but I wasnt expecting the massive errors in specs I saw. I am posting here what I wrote on the Tome hardware forum which is also what I sent in an email to the site. I just thought the people here might be interestered. I just read toms article on the Barton 3000 going up against a p4 and I am shocked at how many facts that are wrong that a rookie should have picked up. Most anyone on this message board should be able to go through and pick up the errors but I just want to point out the worst ones. These are not in order just the way I write them. He makes a big thing about how the Barton will only work on motherboards that have a 166Mhz bus but then he says on his overall list that it will work in AMD 750 and 760 chipset boards. Now correct me if I am wrong but the 750 and 760 are STRICTLY 133Mhz BUS chipsets. He also says it can run at 133Mhz memory bus speeds. Now I didnt think it was possible to have the memory running SLOWER than the main bus. Say the BUS at 166Mhz and the memory at 133Mhz. What a stupid thing to put. OH and I may be wrong but I thought the SIS 735 and 745 chipset was also strictly 133Mhz. Though I am not sure on that last one. Also in his list he has a lot of errors in the Thunderbird specs. He lists the thunderbird as having SSE. Now anyone who even has BASIC CPU knowledge should know the Thunderbird DID NOT have SSE support. Also he limits the memory clock to 166Mhz with a KT400 chipset. Now we all know that with a chipset like that you can easily have the memory at 200Mhz and the main bus at 133Mhz. It is nothing to do with the CPU. He did the same for the Palomino too but not for the T-Bred A which aside form the different micron size is the came chip. He needs to make up his mind. He got the voltages for the T-Bred A wrong too. He says that the Thunderbird has the thermal protection with the motherboard logic. This is NOT TRUE. Only the Palomino`s and upwards have the thermal diode protection. That was in one of this sites OWN articles. He shows the DIE size for the Thunderbird and Palomino as exactly the same when we all know the Palomino is a bigger die because of the added SSE instructions. Plus you can see that just by looking at it anyway. He has the introduction dates for the Thunderbird core and the Palomino core at the same time when we all know the Thunderbird was introduced when a 650Mhz CPU was standard and the Palomino was introduced when a 1.2gig CPU was standard. Besides the fact that they are a whole generation apart. Also I know the Palomino was introduced later than Q4 1999. Also on chipsets we know for a fact that the minimum for the T-Bred B IS NOT KT333. It can be as low as a KT133A if it is a 133Mhz Bus version. Thats all I can think to point out at the moment. I myself am outraged that such a clearly flawed article could even make the light of day. It seems the only thing still any good about toms hardware is the forum. I myself have now lost all trust in any of of the articles posted on toms hardware. AREA_51

Feb 11, 2003, 12:48 AM	#2
HsuGotaQ Hydrogenated Dumbass Join Date: May 2002 Location: Canuckland Posts: 755 Rep Power: 0	Well thats Tom for you.

Feb 11, 2003, 01:08 AM	Thread Starter #3
vk2amv DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 73 Rep Power: 0	Yeah. I knew the site was questionable but I still had a slight bit of trust for some things that were pretty hard to screw up. Now I have no trust. It was a mistake to give it any trust in the first place. AREA_51

Feb 11, 2003, 01:18 AM	Thread Starter #4
vk2amv DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 73 Rep Power: 0	Well if they cant get their basic facts right how can you be sure they get the benchies right? AREA_51

Feb 11, 2003, 01:54 AM	#5
blown503 HardwareHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: S. Indiana Posts: 573 Rep Power: 0	maybe, just maybe he was smokin some crack when he wrote that artical. Im sure his personal computer uses an via kt 400 chip set with a pentium 2 450 mhz chip over clocked with a bus speed of 457 mhz and hes getting 600 fps in winmark 2007. Im sure hes using an ultra fx leaf blower 5900 nvidia chip set that runs around room temp too.

Feb 13, 2003, 03:42 PM	#7
Matth Flash Banner Hater Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,426 Rep Power: 93 System Specs	The AMD 750 is strictly a 100FSB SDRAM chipset, not even 133! - it dates back to the SLOT Athlons, though it was also used with Socket A as well.