Caught in the act.

Joe · 11-15-2002, 12:27 PM

While there has been some mud slinging between HardOCP and ProCooling in the past, today it seems that HardOCP has shown their true colors.

Check out this article at OC'rs, it seems pretty solid from all signs that the Intel sponsored article ( notice the giant banner above the review) lied to some extent and now they are trying to cover it up.

Now the date on the entire review ( or advertise'n as you may think) and all the images have been changed to remove the obvious tell tail signs that the numbers have been fudged.

Well... as Hunter S. Thompson has said...

"Buy the ticket, Take the ride"

Joe · 11-15-2002, 12:32 PM

Oh and BTW about the mass bannings. Thats HardOCP's only retort any time someone questions the content on their site. I think anyone who knows anything has long since been banned at HardOCP atleast once since the veil of bullshit HardOCP wears is not thick enough to keep smart people from seeing through it.

A site with any backbone would stand up for their content if they truly believed in it.... but no instead of standing up for it, they just ban people to stop them from asking questions.

pHaestus · 11-15-2002, 01:19 PM

Well Kyle always has the option of blaming all this on Steve and giving him the boot. This would, of course, result in Steve threatening to kick Kyle's ass in real life. I figure Kyle owns approximately 27 firearms (that is the Texas average), and so this could get interesting.

A suggestion to the readers:

Out of sight, out of mind...

mfpmax · 11-15-2002, 02:02 PM

there is(or should I say was) a nice thread exposing this. I don't read reviews there...and I hang in the car forum mostly.

I must know nothing though

pHaestus, but Steve has like mad sweet Camaro that is hella fast...

phreenet · 11-15-2002, 02:46 PM

I love [H]

Its like a Jerry Springer show from the mid '90s, except with computer geeks as the morons on stage fighting each other and the world. Their reviews stink, and really someone needs to shut Steve, the I will beat you up Physco, up.

Quickmcj · 11-15-2002, 05:22 PM

Man...this is so funny.

I realized after [H] banned the procooling folks that [H] was full of crap, but this is so obvious that it cannot be denied...in which they are trying anyway.

Really hope that people starts to realise this, so that [H] are taught a leason or eventually will lose users....or more.

Look here for more:

http://xtreme.routehero.com/forums/s...5&pagenumber=1

http://forums.overclockers.com.au/sh...hreadid=113066

http://forum.oc-forums.com/vb/showth...hreadid=139415

http://www.warp2search.net/article.p...thread&order=0

http://www.warp2search.net/article.p...thread&order=0

Sure looks like [H] burned they fingers...

Quickmcj · 11-15-2002, 05:27 PM

And I have done a really stupid thing probaly...posted those links in the Hardforums too...

Well...think people has the right to know.

phreenet · 11-15-2002, 06:28 PM

Hope you didn't want to keep your account Quickmcj

Blackeagle · 11-15-2002, 07:17 PM

Isaw a parody site that addressed this, tried to post a link but screwed up the link somehow. If anyone knows the site that had that parody of Tom's hardware it may well be the same place, it had the same look.

Sorry about that bad link.

gogo · 11-15-2002, 07:33 PM

So how biased, I wonder, are the 'editorials' in cpu magazine.

I noticed this month that he writes in there too and was pushing Intel. It's amazin' what you can find in the lines at Walmart next to the beef jerky, tobacco, and breath mints.

Quickmcj · 11-15-2002, 07:36 PM

The closed treads in Hardforum are here:

http://home.attbi.com/~mahkmud/Page1.htm

http://home.attbi.com/~mahkmud/Page2.htm

http://home.attbi.com/~mahkmud/Page3.htm

RealNut · 11-16-2002, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe
While there has been some mud slinging between HardOCP and ProCooling in the past, today it seems that HardOCP has shown their true colors.

Check out this article at OC'rs, it seems pretty solid from all signs that the Intel sponsored article ( notice the giant banner above the review) lied to some extent and now they are trying to cover it up.

LOL! Am I suprised? Nope! This came from couple clowns, who dropped, kicked and banned me; when I can't and wouldn't pay them some crazy amount of money to be mentioned. Then later on tried to trash my company, if I don't replace parts fried by one of the jokers.

Unbiased they claimed, yeh right; money talks in [H].

pHaestus · 11-16-2002, 08:14 AM

Wow. I have heard similar comments from vendors; paying money = Steve or Kyle mentioning your stuff and that it rocks in the news. I always figured that was how the whole CPUFX/OCH thing started anyway.

Kyle: That is untrue! You're all damn liars (pushing bags of money under the table out of view)...

-Rogue5- · 11-16-2002, 03:02 PM

Heh,

I got banned for saying they sold out, and that was before the waterblock round up.....ACTUALLY, I got banned for saying that they shouldn't be pimping BFG Technologies when they haven't released a card yet (They had that big article on the main page saying that 'with a box art like that, you know they are good!').

The worst part is, even though there are tons of people that have realized how badly they fugged up, people will still read that tripe...

-Rogue5-

p.s. Kyle tried to set the record straight with that thing on the front page, but its really too little, too late. The fact that they banned people because its their only way of defending themselves (which they do a LOT!) is flat out ridiculous. Typing something like 'I shouldn't have let the error occur' is a different pile of crap altogether....it still doesn't address their childish ways and half-assed reviews

pHaestus · 11-16-2002, 07:41 PM

Quick Detective work from the Pro/News Staff uncovered the source of all the commotion! Apparently, [S]teve accidentally changed a couple of settings in 3dmark and forgot to return them to defaults:

More as it develops

g.l.amour · 11-16-2002, 08:11 PM

good un Phaestus.

well, after all the commotion, i still read their review for some nice px etc. and their homepage for an assortment of news, i also do alot of other sites; so i guess as long as you keep everything into perspective it shouldn't be all too evil, reading (and laughing a little from time to time) what [H] brings.

as i can only surf some between help desk calls at work, i find browsing these forums, and a quick glance at [H] the most fun. be honest if something like NV30 is to hit you are going to know fast at [H]; at these forums too ofcourse.

pHaestus · 11-16-2002, 08:14 PM

No thank you. I prefer to live H|OCP-free.

mfpmax · 11-16-2002, 08:28 PM

IS THAT WHAT THEY FOUND IN THAT SANDRA PROGRAM!

WHERE CAN I FIND THAT FEATURE TO SHOW OFF TO MY FRIENDS MY SYSTEM IS LEET CAUSE ITS GOT INTEL INSIDE!

oh man...I felt myself get dumber on that one.

Brad · 11-16-2002, 10:42 PM

kylies poor excuse for an explanation still fails to explain just how it happened. surely they proof the articles first.

Especially because steve said he reran the tests to make sure they were accurate. Overclocking the cpu or graphics card seems to be the most logical explanation.

The other thing is that they report a larger gain with the 3.06 with or without HT enabled throughout the entire review. If you look on the third page you will see that:

Intel 3.06: Clocked at 23*133=3.06GHz; ASUS P4PE Mainboard; ATi Radeon 9700 Pro (6166); 512MB Corsair XMS3500 DDR; BroadCom 10/100/1000; Maxtor 40GB ATA/133 7200RPM HD; Windows XP Professional. Intel Chipset Driver version 4.00.1009.

Intel 2.80: Clocked at 21*133=2.80GHz; ASUS P4B533-V Mainboard; ATi Radeon 9700 Pro (6166); 2x (512MB) Corsair XMS3000 DDR; Onboard 10/100 PCI; Maxtor 40GB ATA/133 7200RPM HD; Windows XP Professional. Intel Chipset Driver version 4.00.1009.

Intel 2.53: Clocked at 19*133=2.53GHz; MSI 648 MAX; ATi Radeon 9700 Pro (6166); 2x (512MB) Corsair XMS3000 DDR; BroadCom 10/100/1000; Maxtor 40GB ATA/133 7200RPM HD; Windows XP Professional; SiS IDE driver v1.01.13. SiS AGP driver v1.10.03. (166 & 200MHz memory bus tested)

three differant motherboards, with differant chipsets, differant amounts of ram. Why did they do that? I bet their ram timings were differant as well.

Two explanations come to mind. Simple laziness of rerunning benchmarks on the same board, or intentionally skewing results to favour the 3.06ghz cpu

Cyco-Dude · 11-17-2002, 04:38 PM

i agree with that. their comparisons are rarely "apples to apples". ive pretty muched stopped reading their reviews because of that. surely the board that had the 3.06ghz chip could also be used with the other chips? surely they couldve used the same amount of RAM for each system? or used the same vid-card, or drivers, or whatever.

i think they are just lazy and reusing old benchmark results...and they think that saying "keep in mind we are using different hardware, blah blah" will make everything OK. lol

oh well, its a good example of why its a good idea to read several reviews of the same product by different websites.

Brad · 11-18-2002, 12:11 AM

it's also a good idea to not read any review from [h] or thg as you might get corrupted

PlawsWorth · 11-19-2002, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe
While there has been some mud slinging between HardOCP and ProCooling in the past, today it seems that HardOCP has shown their true colors.

Check out this article at OC'rs, it seems pretty solid from all signs that the Intel sponsored article ( notice the giant banner above the review) lied to some extent and now they are trying to cover it up.

Now the date on the entire review ( or advertise'n as you may think) and all the images have been changed to remove the obvious tell tail signs that the numbers have been fudged.

Well... as Hunter S. Thompson has said...

"Buy the ticket, Take the ride"

Reading this and laughing reminds me of That '70s Show and Michael Kelso. I just got to quote him :-)

"BURN!, WHAT A BURN!"

Man those guys over at HardOCP are money w****s, selling their souls to devil (Intel) :-)

Genix · 12-01-2002, 01:00 PM

Here's some e-mails that occured between me and Kyle:

ME
I never would have expected it, you guys cheating results. That's ridiculous. I used to trust you guys, too. Well not anymore. http://genmay.net/showthread.php?s=&...5&pagenumber=1

KYLE
If you are the type of person that believes everything your read in a public forum, then you most likely should not be using electrical equipment.

ME
What about the tons of people who saw the change?

KYLE
This was fully addressed on the front page of the HardOCP. You are a couple of weeks behind. An apology was issued for the posting of the incorrect graph.

Just thought I would share that.

Joe · 12-01-2002, 02:29 PM

heheht the issue was not as much about the graph changing but about them banning ANYONE who even questioned it.

Steve is Kyles monkey and when kyle isnt around to yank on the leash steve seems to do the stupidest things. ( ie: banning anyone who questions him) some people need to grow a spine I guess.

11-15-2002, 12:27 PM	#1
Joe The Pro/Life Support System Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 4,041	Caught in the act. While there has been some mud slinging between HardOCP and ProCooling in the past, today it seems that HardOCP has shown their true colors. Check out this article at OC'rs, it seems pretty solid from all signs that the Intel sponsored article ( notice the giant banner above the review) lied to some extent and now they are trying to cover it up. Now the date on the entire review ( or advertise'n as you may think) and all the images have been changed to remove the obvious tell tail signs that the numbers have been fudged. Well... as Hunter S. Thompson has said... "Buy the ticket, Take the ride" __________________ Joe - I only take this hat off for one thing... ProCooling archive curator and dusty skeleton.

11-15-2002, 12:32 PM	#2
Joe The Pro/Life Support System Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 4,041	Oh and BTW about the mass bannings. Thats HardOCP's only retort any time someone questions the content on their site. I think anyone who knows anything has long since been banned at HardOCP atleast once since the veil of bullshit HardOCP wears is not thick enough to keep smart people from seeing through it. A site with any backbone would stand up for their content if they truly believed in it.... but no instead of standing up for it, they just ban people to stop them from asking questions. __________________ Joe - I only take this hat off for one thing... ProCooling archive curator and dusty skeleton.

11-15-2002, 02:02 PM	#4
mfpmax Cooling Savant Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Rockledge,FL,US Posts: 731	there is(or should I say was) a nice thread exposing this. I don't read reviews there...and I hang in the car forum mostly. I must know nothing though pHaestus, but Steve has like mad sweet Camaro that is hella fast... __________________ My old and retired watercooling setup. Watercooled K6-2 450 at 600 Also Retired - Watercooling an XP1800@1782MHz

11-15-2002, 02:46 PM	#5
phreenet Cooling Savant Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Gloucester, Virginia Posts: 356	I love [H] Its like a Jerry Springer show from the mid '90s, except with computer geeks as the morons on stage fighting each other and the world. Their reviews stink, and really someone needs to shut Steve, the I will beat you up Physco, up. __________________ Dual Pentium!!! 933@1107 Liquid Cooled.

11-15-2002, 06:28 PM	#8
phreenet Cooling Savant Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Gloucester, Virginia Posts: 356	Hope you didn't want to keep your account Quickmcj __________________ Dual Pentium!!! 933@1107 Liquid Cooled.

11-15-2002, 01:19 PM	#3
pHaestus Big Player Making Big Money Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com Posts: 4,782	Well Kyle always has the option of blaming all this on Steve and giving him the boot. This would, of course, result in Steve threatening to kick Kyle's ass in real life. I figure Kyle owns approximately 27 firearms (that is the Texas average), and so this could get interesting. A suggestion to the readers: Out of sight, out of mind...

11-15-2002, 05:22 PM	#6
Quickmcj Cooling Savant Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 109	Man...this is so funny. I realized after [H] banned the procooling folks that [H] was full of crap, but this is so obvious that it cannot be denied...in which they are trying anyway. Really hope that people starts to realise this, so that [H] are taught a leason or eventually will lose users....or more. Look here for more: http://xtreme.routehero.com/forums/s...5&pagenumber=1 http://forums.overclockers.com.au/sh...hreadid=113066 http://forum.oc-forums.com/vb/showth...hreadid=139415 http://www.warp2search.net/article.p...thread&order=0 http://www.warp2search.net/article.p...thread&order=0 Sure looks like [H] burned they fingers...

11-15-2002, 05:27 PM	#7
Quickmcj Cooling Savant Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 109	And I have done a really stupid thing probaly...posted those links in the Hardforums too... Well...think people has the right to know.

11-15-2002, 07:17 PM	#9
Blackeagle Thermophile Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: U.S.A = Michigan Posts: 1,243	Isaw a parody site that addressed this, tried to post a link but screwed up the link somehow. If anyone knows the site that had that parody of Tom's hardware it may well be the same place, it had the same look. Sorry about that bad link.

11-15-2002, 07:33 PM	#10
gogo Cooling Savant Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: AK Posts: 246	So how biased, I wonder, are the 'editorials' in cpu magazine. I noticed this month that he writes in there too and was pushing Intel. It's amazin' what you can find in the lines at Walmart next to the beef jerky, tobacco, and breath mints. __________________ Now, with Retsyn®

11-15-2002, 07:36 PM	#11
Quickmcj Cooling Savant Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 109	The closed treads in Hardforum are here: http://home.attbi.com/~mahkmud/Page1.htm http://home.attbi.com/~mahkmud/Page2.htm http://home.attbi.com/~mahkmud/Page3.htm

11-16-2002, 08:14 AM	#13
pHaestus Big Player Making Big Money Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com Posts: 4,782	Wow. I have heard similar comments from vendors; paying money = Steve or Kyle mentioning your stuff and that it rocks in the news. I always figured that was how the whole CPUFX/OCH thing started anyway. Kyle: That is untrue! You're all damn liars (pushing bags of money under the table out of view)...

11-16-2002, 03:02 PM	#14
-Rogue5- Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Computer Room Posts: 3	Heh, I got banned for saying they sold out, and that was before the waterblock round up.....ACTUALLY, I got banned for saying that they shouldn't be pimping BFG Technologies when they haven't released a card yet (They had that big article on the main page saying that 'with a box art like that, you know they are good!'). The worst part is, even though there are tons of people that have realized how badly they fugged up, people will still read that tripe... -Rogue5- p.s. Kyle tried to set the record straight with that thing on the front page, but its really too little, too late. The fact that they banned people because its their only way of defending themselves (which they do a LOT!) is flat out ridiculous. Typing something like 'I shouldn't have let the error occur' is a different pile of crap altogether....it still doesn't address their childish ways and half-assed reviews

11-16-2002, 07:41 PM	#15
pHaestus Big Player Making Big Money Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com Posts: 4,782	Another Procooling news flash! Quick Detective work from the Pro/News Staff uncovered the source of all the commotion! Apparently, [S]teve accidentally changed a couple of settings in 3dmark and forgot to return them to defaults: More as it develops

11-16-2002, 08:11 PM	#16
g.l.amour Cooling Savant Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: on da case Posts: 933	good un Phaestus. well, after all the commotion, i still read their review for some nice px etc. and their homepage for an assortment of news, i also do alot of other sites; so i guess as long as you keep everything into perspective it shouldn't be all too evil, reading (and laughing a little from time to time) what [H] brings. as i can only surf some between help desk calls at work, i find browsing these forums, and a quick glance at [H] the most fun. be honest if something like NV30 is to hit you are going to know fast at [H]; at these forums too ofcourse.

11-16-2002, 08:14 PM	#17
pHaestus Big Player Making Big Money Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com Posts: 4,782	No thank you. I prefer to live H\|OCP-free.

11-16-2002, 08:28 PM	#18
mfpmax Cooling Savant Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Rockledge,FL,US Posts: 731	IS THAT WHAT THEY FOUND IN THAT SANDRA PROGRAM! WHERE CAN I FIND THAT FEATURE TO SHOW OFF TO MY FRIENDS MY SYSTEM IS LEET CAUSE ITS GOT INTEL INSIDE! oh man...I felt myself get dumber on that one. __________________ My old and retired watercooling setup. Watercooled K6-2 450 at 600 Also Retired - Watercooling an XP1800@1782MHz

11-16-2002, 10:42 PM	#19
Brad Thermophile Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Nuu Zeeelin Posts: 3,175	kylies poor excuse for an explanation still fails to explain just how it happened. surely they proof the articles first. Especially because steve said he reran the tests to make sure they were accurate. Overclocking the cpu or graphics card seems to be the most logical explanation. The other thing is that they report a larger gain with the 3.06 with or without HT enabled throughout the entire review. If you look on the third page you will see that: Intel 3.06: Clocked at 23133=3.06GHz; ASUS P4PE Mainboard; ATi Radeon 9700 Pro (6166); 512MB Corsair XMS3500 DDR; BroadCom 10/100/1000; Maxtor 40GB ATA/133 7200RPM HD; Windows XP Professional. Intel Chipset Driver version 4.00.1009. Intel 2.80: Clocked at 21133=2.80GHz; ASUS P4B533-V Mainboard; ATi Radeon 9700 Pro (6166); 2x (512MB) Corsair XMS3000 DDR; Onboard 10/100 PCI; Maxtor 40GB ATA/133 7200RPM HD; Windows XP Professional. Intel Chipset Driver version 4.00.1009. Intel 2.53: Clocked at 19*133=2.53GHz; MSI 648 MAX; ATi Radeon 9700 Pro (6166); 2x (512MB) Corsair XMS3000 DDR; BroadCom 10/100/1000; Maxtor 40GB ATA/133 7200RPM HD; Windows XP Professional; SiS IDE driver v1.01.13. SiS AGP driver v1.10.03. (166 & 200MHz memory bus tested) three differant motherboards, with differant chipsets, differant amounts of ram. Why did they do that? I bet their ram timings were differant as well. Two explanations come to mind. Simple laziness of rerunning benchmarks on the same board, or intentionally skewing results to favour the 3.06ghz cpu __________________ 2x P3 1100's at 1400, Abit VP6, 2x Corsair 256mb PC150 sticks, 20gb 'cuda ATA-III, 2x 40gb 'cuda ATA-IV in raid 0. 20" Trinitron. No fans 2x 2400+ at 2288mhz (16.0 x 143), Iwill MPX2, 2x Kingmax PC-3200 256mb sticks, 4x 20gb 60gxp in Raid 5 on a Promise SX6000. Asus Ti4200 320/630. Cooled by Water

11-17-2002, 04:38 PM	#20
Cyco-Dude Cooling Savant Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 836	i agree with that. their comparisons are rarely "apples to apples". ive pretty muched stopped reading their reviews because of that. surely the board that had the 3.06ghz chip could also be used with the other chips? surely they couldve used the same amount of RAM for each system? or used the same vid-card, or drivers, or whatever. i think they are just lazy and reusing old benchmark results...and they think that saying "keep in mind we are using different hardware, blah blah" will make everything OK. lol oh well, its a good example of why its a good idea to read several reviews of the same product by different websites.

11-18-2002, 12:11 AM	#21
Brad Thermophile Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Nuu Zeeelin Posts: 3,175	it's also a good idea to not read any review from [h] or thg as you might get corrupted __________________ 2x P3 1100's at 1400, Abit VP6, 2x Corsair 256mb PC150 sticks, 20gb 'cuda ATA-III, 2x 40gb 'cuda ATA-IV in raid 0. 20" Trinitron. No fans 2x 2400+ at 2288mhz (16.0 x 143), Iwill MPX2, 2x Kingmax PC-3200 256mb sticks, 4x 20gb 60gxp in Raid 5 on a Promise SX6000. Asus Ti4200 320/630. Cooled by Water

12-01-2002, 01:00 PM	#23
Genix Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: NJ, US Posts: 1	Here's some e-mails that occured between me and Kyle: ME I never would have expected it, you guys cheating results. That's ridiculous. I used to trust you guys, too. Well not anymore. http://genmay.net/showthread.php?s=&...5&pagenumber=1 KYLE If you are the type of person that believes everything your read in a public forum, then you most likely should not be using electrical equipment. ME What about the tons of people who saw the change? KYLE This was fully addressed on the front page of the HardOCP. You are a couple of weeks behind. An apology was issued for the posting of the incorrect graph. Just thought I would share that.

12-01-2002, 02:29 PM	#24
Joe The Pro/Life Support System Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 4,041	heheht the issue was not as much about the graph changing but about them banning ANYONE who even questioned it. Steve is Kyles monkey and when kyle isnt around to yank on the leash steve seems to do the stupidest things. ( ie: banning anyone who questions him) some people need to grow a spine I guess. __________________ Joe - I only take this hat off for one thing... ProCooling archive curator and dusty skeleton.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)