View Full Version : Awful cheat Tom... you disappointed me
ALobpreis
09-09-02, 11:47 PM
Did you check last Tom's P4 3.6GHz test (http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q3/020909/index.html)??
Look at the closeup photo in the first page. See that 3.3 on the lower right?
Well, that's edited. Look at the zoomed pic I just made.
Both '3' look identical, and are identical to the 3 on the left too!!
Zoom the original photo and compare any other pair of letters or numbers... they are different! The pixels around the letters are quite random!! Except for these tree 3's. :rolleyes:
Too bad, Tom.....
intercede007
09-10-02, 01:33 AM
Other then color, you are absolutely right. Every pixel is identical from one to the next. I'd be interested though to see a blown up shot that would allow me to see the zero's together too, just because I don't think he would fake those considering their placement, and if they are random, thats the nail in the coffin...
Not another scam. The Inquirer has scammed enough but yet we see Tom's hardware doing it?
Before making that decision I would prefer to hear what the reviewer has to say about that.
I dont get it,
I can see that it has been edited, but what? another dirty scams claiming they have something they dont?:rolleyes:
Any way gave up on Tom's load of Bs ages ago...
Starscream
09-10-02, 12:50 PM
Umm which image has been edited???
anyone care to upload a saved copy to this thread?
Edit - heh just saw it is in fact in ALobpreis' first message.
As much as I don't like Tomshardware.com, I can't really see the difference :confused:
Well, as nazistguy points out, if you looke at the blown-up picture as one of those 3D picture that you have to cross your eyes to see, you can see the block on the 3's. Just get your eyes to affix one 3 on top of the other, and there is clearly a box there. I'm not sure if this truly evidence of a copy and paste, but it sure is interesting nonetheless.
Phyre
yea i see it now heh, though i dont know what to say heh
ALobpreis
09-10-02, 04:47 PM
Here are some of the main similarities:
http://www.safecomputers.com.ar/foropics/p4b2.jpg
Consider the jpg compression changes the image... better zoom the original, from Tom's site.
-=DVS=-
09-10-02, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by ALobpreis
Here are some of the main similarities:
http://www.safecomputers.com.ar/foropics/p4b2.jpg
Consider the jpg compression changes the image... better zoom the original, from Tom's site.
Good work ALobpreis clearly a fake cut and past work :eek:
-=DVS=-
09-10-02, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by DVS
Good work ALobpreis clearly a fake cut and past work :eek:
There is more if you look at original picture carefully you will see wall like clean cuts
ALobpreis
09-10-02, 08:13 PM
My ellipses and arrows are nicer! :D :p
Is this worth mentioning in the main news?? Such a bad move by such an important site....
But look at what I marked. All 3's have different colors on the right.
EDIT: of course colors could have been altered but it would require a lot of precision to do it. I dunno ? :confused:
ALobpreis
09-10-02, 08:42 PM
The copy area may not be a rectangle. Furthermore, doing some random-colored random-pixels isn't anything hard.
The issue are the similar pixels, not the different ones. How can you explain the similarities?
yes i see the similarities, i just wanted to point out what i've seen
StealthHawk
09-10-02, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by ALobpreis
The copy area may not be a rectangle. Furthermore, doing some random-colored random-pixels isn't anything hard.
The issue are the similar pixels, not the different ones. How can you explain the similarities?
you'd think if they were smart enough to do that then maybe they would have changed the the similar pixels too.
lots of weird random things occur in the world though, just something to think about
I'm not sure that posting this on our front-page would be the best idea...Mutants come out of the wood-work when they smell blood from accusations like this...
However, I certainly think an email or two to the man is in order...hopefully, we can get this whole mess cleared up.
I'll fire-off an email tomorrow morning and let you know what he says...
intercede007
09-12-02, 10:02 AM
I found this on Hard[OCP] this morning
"Just a side note, we have been bombed this morning with everyone reporting the fake 3.3GHz P4 pictures that popped up today, and all the sites out there that have editorials, rants or articles disproving the obvious fakes. PLEASE don’t send any more of this stuff, we know, we have seen it….and frankly, if posting that stuff is what gives those guys kicks, more power to them. "
Tom caught with his hand in the cookie jar?
Solomon
09-12-02, 12:05 PM
I'm not here to disprove or agree that it's a fake, but this is what pops in my head.
1) Maybe Intel provided the picture to Tom to use for the article? So if we remove the picture, would you still believe the article?
2) Intel demonstrated a 4.6GHz at their conference. So is it possible that a 3.3GHz or 3.6GHz is really so far fetched to believe?
3) Would Tom be that stupid to do a fake article after the relentless slamming to [H] and Vans Hardware?
Personally for me? I can really care less if the picture is fake or not. I looked at the article and came out with the conclusion that Intel has the GHz race down pat. Meaning that they already have all the necessary strings to release faster and faster CPU's if needed. That's what I got out of the article. Considering Intel demonatrated the 4.6GHz and Tom's controversial article on the 3.3GHz and 3.6GHz.
Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com
Personally, I did not even begin to doubt the validity of the CPU used in the article. Only after I realized that there was no real focus on HyperThreading ( a huge feature in my mind ). Doing some research and viewing the opinions of others in our forums and around the net, I began to be a bit more suspicious.
Tom has since edited their article to reflect the fact that the CPU in question is essentially an overclocker's dream Northwood. I have no problem with this, aside from one aspect. The fact that he seems to claim that this overclocked CPU is an accurate depiction of the "legit" 3GHz+ CPU really seems a bit far-stretched. As far as I know, no CPU's with HyperThreading have been sampled thus far. Wouldn't this feature ( amidst others ) effect performance?
This certainly seems to be a sticky situation...I'm beginning to think this field is like a bad soap opera...
:D
Solomon
09-12-02, 12:21 PM
I tend to agree with you pelly that the fact the hyperthreading wasn't even brought up. But if you look at the bigger scope of things. The Northwood is far more sacalable them maybe people have been let to believe?
Did Tom mention if his CPU is at least a C1 stepping? If it was, then we can come to some sort of conclusion that the C1 stepping is very very flexible in terms of GHz speed.
I try not to get caught up with validating if an article is legit or not. I only do that with The Inquirer, because it's so easy to make fun of them as they do it to themselves. Hehe.
Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com
Given the insane overclocking ability of the CPU, I have to imagine the processor is based upon the next stepping...
As far as validating an article...I refrained from posting anything until I gave Tom the opportunity to respond. When he failed to reply in any manner whatsoever ( even to say he was too busy to answer right away ), my suspicions grew too high...
It definitely came across ( in my opinion ) that Tom was trying to pass this CPU off as one of these "next-generation" processors with all the new bells and whistles...
:rolleyes:
Solomon
09-12-02, 12:32 PM
I would have to add that Intel must of gave them the "Go Ahead" with the article. I have no ties with Intel, but I would certainly email them and just say:
"Is Tom's article supposed to be taken truthfully or is this a hoax"
At least you are not asking about the speed, availability, etc... So if Intel doesn't at least answer that question then I would then start to evaluate if the article is legit or not.
Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com
haha... I love it when people try to fake a pic... I remember some faked shots of the GF3 core... Come on people, just because you know a little photoshop doesn't make you a master at forgery.
These guys don't realize that there are plenty of people out there who do a lot of graphical work... we are used to staring at pixels all day... we can spot fakes like this a mile away...
By the way... I do think it would be interest for use guys to make our own fake pictures... maybe fake NV30 cores? It would be an interesting contest, and we could show them how its really done :)
ALobpreis
09-12-02, 03:45 PM
2) Intel demonstrated a 4.6GHz at their conference. So is it possible that a 3.3GHz or 3.6GHz is really so far fetched to believe?
Just because there is or could be a P4 4GHz+ doesn't mean I have it! The same applies to Tom.
If Tom has the CPU, why would Intel send him a pic? And why would it be edited? If the chip exists, there's no need to edit anything! (ok, maybe some serial no. but nothing else)
Even maybe Tom had a P4 running at that speed, the benchies are logical, but making you think it's an official real CPU instead of just an overclocked one is not nice...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.