Microsoft gaming PC page still fails to deliver

WE REPORTED earlier in the month that Microsoft had planned to update its less than accurate gaming PC page, which readily and dutifully plugged the Intel P4 processor and HyperThreading technology, but failed to mention what I believe is the best processor for gaming - the AMD Athlon 64. The software behemoth has updated its offending page, but it still leaves much to be desired.

Failings
Processor section: The author says that the 3GHz Intel P4 "is a great start", but failed to say that the Athlon 64 is the best processor for gaming. He refers to it as "also a good choice". I would have said "better choice". He also demotes the better performing processor to the second paragraph, which doesn't give the chip and AMD the kudos that they have earned.

The author incorrectly says, "…the Athlon 64 processor in particular is designed for applications that require multi-processor scalability". The AMD Opteron 200 and 800 series processors are the only AMD64 chips that have their multi-processor capability switched on.

He says that Intel Celeron based PCs don't process data fast enough to support high-end games, but fails to mention that an AMD Athlon XP based alternative would do the job just fine. I'm making the assumption here that the author was referring to the Northwood based desktop Celeron, as it only has 128KB of level two cache. The latest Prescott based Celeron has double the level two cache and a faster front side bus, which makes it a very different beast. When X-bit labs compared the performance of the Prescott and Northwood Celerons, the difference was like night and day. (1). However, X-bit labs noted that the Athlon XP was still the better chip for games. Readers of Microsoft's gaming PC page should be made aware that the Prescott Celeron is a suitable processor for gaming.

AMD Athlon XP processors are very popular for gaming. The Athlon XP 2500+ has been a Newegg top ten seller for so many months now that it's literally a permanent fixture - the same can't be said of Celeron. (2). Newegg's customer reviews also attest to its popularity. (3). In a piece last month about Gateway selling AMD kit on the side, we reported that 62.7% of TigerDirect's 67 gaming PCs were AMD processor based - 37.3% were Athlon XP and 25.4% were Athlon 64. The breakdown today for its 65 offerings is just a little different - 61.5% are AMD processor based, which breaks down as 35.38% for Athlon XP and 26.15% for Athlon 64. It should be noted that only one of TigerDirect's gaming PCs is Celeron powered. That might change if the Celeron brand is able to shake off its past reputation for poor performance.

For both the Intel and AMD processors, the author failed to adequately explain and highlight the technology differences. He should have informed his audience about the hot running Prescott P4, especially when its Athlon 64 counterpart doesn't have that problem. Putting in links for the AMD and Intel Web sites is all well and good, but those who read the author's article are far more interested in his opinion, not that of the manufacturers.

Memory section: The author recommends buying a gaming PC with DDR333 memory, which would leave out many gaming PCs as they ship with DDR400 memory. Some Intel based machines are now available with DDR2 memory as well. If the author had done his homework, he could have explained what the new DDR2 memory standard was all about and whether its performance justifies its extra cost.

Video card section: No mention of the fact that the industry is moving to PCI Express graphics cards. Microsoft's readership should have been made aware of that technology transition, especially when the author says that serious gamers should be prepared to upgrade their graphics cards every six months.

Hard disk section: No mention of the fact that the industry is also moving to serial ATA hard drives. The author could have discussed that as well.

Motherboard section: There is no motherboard section. If the author had remembered the importance of the motherboard, he could have discussed in more detail the different platform options available - socket A for Athlon XP, socket 754/939/940 for Athlon 64, and socket 478 and socket T for the Intel Netburst processors. Many of today's gaming motherboards have extensive tweaking options, which makes overclocking very easy to do. Successful overclocking can save the gamer big bucks.

Self assembly PC section: There is no self assembly PC section. Even though the author wrote about the individual PC components, he could have mentioned that it's not too difficult to build a PC yourself. If the author decides to include such a section, he'll need to mention the importance of the power supply as well, which is critical for power guzzling processors like Prescott.

Microsoft's gaming PC page now headlines: How to Buy a Great Gaming Rig without Breaking the Bank. The sad thing is, however, is that the article didn't tell that story. Those less informed who read it would think that a P4 or an Athlon 64 is the minimum required for gaming. If people make a buying decision based on that assumption, they may end up paying more for their gaming PC than is necessary.

Making Microsoft's gaming PC page an informative and credible read
It really is incredible that after all the negative publicity that has been generated, Microsoft still hasn't been able to fix its offending page. One would have thought that to protect the software giant from any more embarrassing episodes, Microsoft would have stipulated to the author that his article would have to be solid; that is say: no glaring mistakes or omissions. Well, Microsoft's star author has managed to score an embarrassing own goal. It's getting to the point where this page has garnered such a bad reputation for its lack of credibility - it's been like that for over eight months now - that if it gets fixed, it may never be taken seriously.

At least we know who the author is. We won't embarrass him further by revealing his name here. The section which describes his background says he's a prolific freelance journalist who has written 12 books and currently contributes to over 40 prominent publications. He's also a radio and TV host as well. Would it be fair to say that the author's workload was a contributory factor to his article being so poor? If he's the technology expert that Microsoft is claiming, then how does one explain his article's failings? Maybe the author's level of expertise just isn't that deep. If that is the case, then Microsoft needs a new expert. [You're a hard man Mario, Ed.]

To make Microsoft's gaming PC page an informative and credible read, here's what needs to be done:

1. It needs to be clearly stated that the AMD Athlon 64 is currently the best processor overall for gaming. Isn't that journalism 101? A Microsoft gaming page had no problem listing what the ten best E3 Windows games were. (4). So what's the problem? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the slower performing processor is Intel designed and manufactured?
2. Because of 1, Athlon 64 and AMD should be given the kudos that they have earned.
3. The incorrect statement about Athlon 64's multi-processor capability needs to be corrected.
4. The performance difference between the Northwood and Prescott Celerons needs to be explained.
5. Since Celeron has been discussed, Athlon XP needs to be addressed as well.
6. More detail is required about the technology differences between the AMD and Intel platforms.
7. People need to be informed about the hot running Prescott P4, especially when Athlon 64 doesn't have that problem.
8. The memory section needs to address DDR400 and DDR2 memory.
9. The video card section needs to address the technology transition to PCI Express graphics cards.
10. The hard disk section needs to address the transition to and the benefits of serial ATA hard drives.
11. A motherboard section is required.
12. There needs to be a self assembly PC section.
13. To make the article tie-in with the headline, the author needs to list typical pricing for value, mid-range, and top-of-the-line solutions.

Since some of our readers have already proved instrumental in getting the software giant to act, we'll call on them again to raise their concerns with Microsoft. If those who contact Microsoft could email me the software vendor's response, we might get these shortcomings fixed. Don't forget to include the link for this article and the Microsoft gaming PC page as well. The software vendor's contact page is linked below.

See Also
Microsoft's gaming PC page is still the same....
Slowest Athlon 64 humbles fastest P4 in gaming
Is Intel's Prescott P4 too hot to handle?
Gateway sells AMD kit on the side

L'INQS
Microsoft's less than acceptable gaming PC page
Microsoft's contact page
1
2
3
4