Wbmw:
Where was Intel showing of processor power consumption on those PR fluff so called review pieces? If would have shown Conroe in a better light, they would have had them. But since they didn't, perhaps Conroe was drawing more power than the OC FX-60. And the perf per watt benchmarks would have shown FX-60 in a better light? And even ahead of Conroe even with all of the disadvantages? Not having them for Conroe makes them irrelevant for comparisons. We know that FX-60 does well below the published TDPmax for it from Xbit and other sites.
Any truly independent third party would have at least attempted getting power draw readings. You can tell where Conroe would be shown in a bad light by what Intel didn't say, do, show or allow anyone else to do. They didn't use a standard BIOS. They didn't use an off the shelf video driver. They did not publish the setup, hardware used, device settings, etc. They didn't use standard off the shelf software or demo scripts. So much was non standard that any benchmarks would have to have lots of notes detailing differences with the norms.
If the results can't be reproduced by independent third parties, the claims must be thrown out and become irrelevant. Due diligence isn't an option, but a requirement with hardware reviews. Too many review sites have lost sight of that.
Pete
BTW, I called that the Hexus.net review's PCMark 2005 Memory scores were low for the FX60 OC given the published settings and subsequently was proven correct. That is not "missing" from here. Likely just your typical reading comprehension problems.
AI
