- #1
Thread Owner
I recently read through Anand's revies of the Abit KT7-RAID and the Asus A7V , as well as the full Socket A motherboard roundup , and Anand gave the nod to the Abit, showing that it was better at overclocking and both boards were very close in benchmarks.
Based on that roundup, and Tom's Hardware's lack of any decent Socket A motherboard reviews, I purchased a KT7-RAID board. When I received it, I was very impressed with some of the features.
Today, I check Tom's Hardware to find that there is now a review of 10 Socket A boards , with some strange inconsistencies.
First, Tom reviews the Abit KT7 as having only ATA66, while the board actually comes with ATA100.
Second, he reviews the Asus as "the only manufacturer in our test that includes an adapter cable for the three additional USB ports, so you can actually use them", whereas my Abit came with a connector for an additional 2 USB ports in addition to the 2 ATX spec ports, something that was omitted from the Abit review.
Third, Tom's benchmarks almost directly contrast the findings of Anand's, again with inconsistencies.
I'm not sure if this is just bad reviewing or blatant bias, but something don't smell right.
----------------------------
spidergoolash: "heh, a cup of diesel dan - mwahhha"
me: "heh, a cup of me is like a cup of heaven!"
Based on that roundup, and Tom's Hardware's lack of any decent Socket A motherboard reviews, I purchased a KT7-RAID board. When I received it, I was very impressed with some of the features.
Today, I check Tom's Hardware to find that there is now a review of 10 Socket A boards , with some strange inconsistencies.
First, Tom reviews the Abit KT7 as having only ATA66, while the board actually comes with ATA100.
Second, he reviews the Asus as "the only manufacturer in our test that includes an adapter cable for the three additional USB ports, so you can actually use them", whereas my Abit came with a connector for an additional 2 USB ports in addition to the 2 ATX spec ports, something that was omitted from the Abit review.
Third, Tom's benchmarks almost directly contrast the findings of Anand's, again with inconsistencies.
- Here , the Asus leads, and the Abit is middle of the pack.
- Here , the Asus again leads, with the Abit still middle of the pack.
- Yet, here , in a benchmark that supposedly "shows the sequence of the game benchmarks", the Asus is in front (as expected), while the Abit, inexplicably, trails every other motherboard.
I'm not sure if this is just bad reviewing or blatant bias, but something don't smell right.
----------------------------
spidergoolash: "heh, a cup of diesel dan - mwahhha"
me: "heh, a cup of me is like a cup of heaven!"