Amd 64 benchmark

Is this what I think it is? Is it me or a typo?
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2003...lon_64-46.html . P4 is slower
than the amd64 but wins by19.6%?

Yeah I think that happened quite a few times actually.....

Pretty funny really.... They say they spent 4 weeks doing that thing up...
What were they doing for 3 1/2 weeks going for a holiday???

THG is unprofessional in my opinion. Hell they don't even seem to proof read
they're work.....

-----
Mark



"Glen Sell" <> wrote in message
news:A6rcb.69888$...
> Is this what I think it is? Is it me or a typo?
> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2003...lon_64-46.html . P4 is slower
> than the amd64 but wins by19.6%?
>
>

See even I proof read....
Correction to the previous post: "they're" to "their"....

-----
Mark


"Mark Nichols" <> wrote in message
news:bku6cv$b29$...
> Yeah I think that happened quite a few times actually.....
>
> Pretty funny really.... They say they spent 4 weeks doing that thing up...
> What were they doing for 3 1/2 weeks going for a holiday???
>
> THG is unprofessional in my opinion. Hell they don't even seem to proof
read
> they're work.....
>
> -----
> Mark
>
>
>
> "Glen Sell" <> wrote in message
> news:A6rcb.69888$...
> > Is this what I think it is? Is it me or a typo?
> > http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2003...lon_64-46.html . P4 is
slower
> > than the amd64 but wins by19.6%?
> >
> >
>
>

THG are basically Intel fanboy #1, while thay have recently toned down
articles to try and appear impartial, you only have to look at older
articles to see the Intel bias.

That said the articles can sometimes be interesting if you take them
with a bucketload of salt. ;-)


In article <bku6cv$b29$>,
said...
> Yeah I think that happened quite a few times actually.....
>
> Pretty funny really.... They say they spent 4 weeks doing that thing up...
> What were they doing for 3 1/2 weeks going for a holiday???
>
> THG is unprofessional in my opinion. Hell they don't even seem to proof read
> they're work.....
>
> -----
> Mark
>
>
>
> "Glen Sell" <> wrote in message
> news:A6rcb.69888$...
> > Is this what I think it is? Is it me or a typo?
> > http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2003...lon_64-46.html . P4 is slower
> > than the amd64 but wins by19.6%?
> >
> >
>
>
>

"Glen Sell" <> wrote in message news:<A6rcb.69888$>. ..
> Is this what I think it is? Is it me or a typo?
> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2003...lon_64-46.html . P4 is slower
> than the amd64 but wins by19.6%?

Probably a bad translation from the original German.

http://www.de.tomshardware.com/cpu/2...lon_64-47.html

Can anyone translate (without Google or AltaVista)?

"Bei diesem Benchmark kommt Hyperthreading des P4 voll zum tragen: Der
Athlon 64 FX-51 liegt mit 19.6 Prozent zurück."

"phsstpok" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> "Glen Sell" <> wrote in message
news:<A6rcb.69888$>. ..
> > Is this what I think it is? Is it me or a typo?
> > http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2003...lon_64-46.html . P4 is
slower
> > than the amd64 but wins by19.6%?
>
> Probably a bad translation from the original German.
>
> http://www.de.tomshardware.com/cpu/2...lon_64-47.html
>
> Can anyone translate (without Google or AltaVista)?
>
> "Bei diesem Benchmark kommt Hyperthreading des P4 voll zum tragen: Der
> Athlon 64 FX-51 liegt mit 19.6 Prozent zurück."

If I remember my high school German a literal translation would be:

Tragically the benchmark for the Hyper Threading P4 is like An Athlon 64
FX-51 on Prozac ;-)

"Full power to the shields Scotty, they're gonna flame us!" :-O