Joe, <I didn't notice you criticizing Tom for the same articles in the past where the names of the companies (Intel / AMD) were reversed.>
Tom has a long history of being anti-Intel ever since the P6 days. Tom has been pro-K6, anti-Pentium II ("K6 will destroy Pentium II"), anti-Slot 1, anti-AGP, pro-3DNow!, and SSE-skeptic. Like you said, knowing his angle lets me discriminate between fact and opinion easier. That's why when Tom has one of those few pro-Intel days, I take note, because it goes against his normal flow.
<Anand has consistently been pro-Intel>
Well, I guess anyone is biased in one way or another. It all depends on where you are coming from. The difference is that Anand stays professional and sticks to reporting. Tom, on the other hand, feels like he's on a personal crusade for truth and justice in the computing world. No matter what his bias is, that ego of his is a real turn-off, not to mention a detriment to his reputation for great benchmarking.
As for Anand's article, I agree that he hasn't revealed anything beyond what Rambus PR told him. So how is that any different than the times when Tom was a virtual pawn of AMD marketing during the pre-K7 days?
Tenchusatsu |
