Another Misleading Review From Toms
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
Another Misleading Review From Toms
The "comments" at the end of the review is actually the best part of the review that Toms have created.
----------------
Quoting "jhrty".
"Page 13 results and corresponding claims regarding flash sucking more power = total bullshit.
Numbers were calculated badly and ain't worrth a broken penny.
Take a better look at page 12 and you will see that Memoright flash based PC gets >2x the amount of work done befor going out of juice comparing to hdd based laptop.
What more, it does it in shorter time. It goes out of juice quicker, because cpu and other laptop components are working hard because there are no stalls from hdd access time.
Want to get apples to apples comparision? Try a benchmark where there's X to do and after that laptop goes into idle state for the rest of test. Flash based devices will win this one easily (and then again, they will finish the bloody task much faster and that's what most of us are looking for)"
----------------
I couldnt have said it better myself, the entire test is faulty - ending with a faulty conclusion and results.
They should have run XXX tests XXX amount of times, and then see how long it takes to run out of battery life.
A sub-par inteligence 8-year old could have figured out that Toms testing methodology is faulty.
Andy
----------------
Quoting "jhrty".
"Page 13 results and corresponding claims regarding flash sucking more power = total bullshit.
Numbers were calculated badly and ain't worrth a broken penny.
Take a better look at page 12 and you will see that Memoright flash based PC gets >2x the amount of work done befor going out of juice comparing to hdd based laptop.
What more, it does it in shorter time. It goes out of juice quicker, because cpu and other laptop components are working hard because there are no stalls from hdd access time.
Want to get apples to apples comparision? Try a benchmark where there's X to do and after that laptop goes into idle state for the rest of test. Flash based devices will win this one easily (and then again, they will finish the bloody task much faster and that's what most of us are looking for)"
----------------
I couldnt have said it better myself, the entire test is faulty - ending with a faulty conclusion and results.
They should have run XXX tests XXX amount of times, and then see how long it takes to run out of battery life.
A sub-par inteligence 8-year old could have figured out that Toms testing methodology is faulty.
Andy
-
- Posts: 347
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:57 am
An interesting review about a new cheap SSD, with a really different power SAVING result to those dickheads over at Toms. They will be posting a power usage review of this (and possibly other) SSD's soon. Chances are that they used a sensible testing method and are not mentally retarded like the reviewers at Toms.
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1498/1 ... index.html
Another review inside an actual laptop from Legit Reviews.
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/715/1/
In stock now at New Egg with a nice pricetag for the capacity.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820609303
Andy
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1498/1 ... index.html
Another review inside an actual laptop from Legit Reviews.
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/715/1/
In stock now at New Egg with a nice pricetag for the capacity.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820609303
Andy
Granted, but the same can be said of the Samsung F1 reviews, which has proven to be no less reliable than its counterparts, really fast and really quiet. What this tells us is that the average bloke on the street doesnt know much, and their respoces should be taken with a pinch of salt.but that SSD referenced with the nice price at the egg sure doesn't have a nice set of reviews. Don't think I've seen anything that negative on there in a while!
This SSD might be really unreliable, they might have had a duff batch, or half of the people claiming they are faulty are wrong/lies. I am of course not saying such a thing at all, my point is simply that we dont know how reliable any of the SSD's really are until they are sold in volume and after 12-months or more.
Andy
I take ALL reviews with a small degree of skepticism, just on principle, but I lost any faith in TH reviews in the late 90's while doing workstation build and shopping for an appropriate video card. Their nVidia bias was so blatant both subjectively and in their test methods I have never trusted their reviews since. And of course at the the time nVidia was one of their biggest sponsors with adverts all over the site.
Toms have admitted that they are pretty useless reviewers after dozens of people, and other websites pointed out their many mistakes.
They have changed loads of testing methods, and have tested a new SSD (or "Flash SSD" as Toms like to call them ). The new OCZ (Samsung) drive uses newer technology and is far better than all of the other drives tested, and it is also damned quick.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/ssd-hard- ... 86-12.html
So the bottom line is that older SSD's may not be as power efficient as mechanical drives, newer SSD's may be far better whilst providing blazing performance as well. The important thing to remember is that SSD's vary a lot in power usage, just like we already knew that they vary a lot in performance.
Andy
They have changed loads of testing methods, and have tested a new SSD (or "Flash SSD" as Toms like to call them ). The new OCZ (Samsung) drive uses newer technology and is far better than all of the other drives tested, and it is also damned quick.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/ssd-hard- ... 86-12.html
So the bottom line is that older SSD's may not be as power efficient as mechanical drives, newer SSD's may be far better whilst providing blazing performance as well. The important thing to remember is that SSD's vary a lot in power usage, just like we already knew that they vary a lot in performance.
Andy