Talk:AnandTech

Big Boards

I'm not sure what to do with this, but in discussions with Ken "Caesar" Fisher, owner of arstechnica.com he has repeatedly told me the BigBoards is a very unreliable indicator of message board size. Should we consider dropping them as evidence? Kd5mdk 07:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The photo

I think the photo should go. This article is about the website, not the individual. RickK 07:27, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

If nobody object, I'm going to delete that picture. RickK 20:24, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well - it is his website....

POV

Does anyone else think that perhaps this page reads a bit like marketing material? "the journal that other journalists read" and so on?

Personally, I'm wondering where the unsourced "purported to be one of the largest [forums] on the Internet" line came from. There are plenty of highly active Internet forums that outclass ATOT and the AT forums in general, in terms of number of posts. Also, regarding the previous comment, I tend to see Tom's Hardware Guide and HardOCP being sourced fairly often by journalists too, so that does seems like a bit of marketing spin. HoosTrax 01:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

POV

Definetely, this looks like marketing, someone please mod

Infobox?

Why does the infobox report Tom's Hardware as Successor? What's Successor meaning in this context?

Stefpac (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Removed Similar Pages

Why was the similar page link to Unique Hardware removed? Are both sites not hardware review sites? Dalponis 19:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of AMD motherboards?

There's no articles of AMD motherboards for a few months. Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.93.184.110 (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Problems

Does anyone have a problem to view Anandtech pages? When I connect to any page that belongs to Anandtech all I get is a blank page. Is there something wrong with the Anandtech site or am I missing some flash player, adobe update, service pack or what not ?

NadrrKhan 12:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)NadrrKhan

Delete

Delete this article. It is a simple marketing plug that does not belong on Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kashk5 (talk • contribs).

What's your evidence for it being a marketing ploy? I vote that it should stay: it's one of the most well-known, tech-related sites on the Internet so it's notable enough on that basis, imo. -- Hux 15:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Site's history

Given that the article claims he was 14 years old at the time of founding, can someone explain how he managed to get review samples of hardware? What were his connections? Were his parents engineers, etc.? Without an explanation I find it pretty hard to believe that the information is accurate, or that he was actually running the site (and not his parents). Or is the article saying that he started a personal blog at 14, and it was only after he went to college, work, etc. that it became a well-known site with industry connections? If that's the case, more emphasis should be placed on the history of the website that people actually read, and the stuff about his blog at 14 should be removed. (Perhaps copied to his bio page as a curiosity -- it's really more about him than it is about the current website.) Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It was the internet and 1997. I know this is a bit hard to believe in slightly more modern times, but vendors were fast and loose with hardware back then. After he published a few articles with his own gear, he was able to start getting some lower-end hardware and working up from there. Vendors were happy to give out hardware for testing, given the advantage of timing in internet publications over print publications such as Computer Shopper. His parents did help organize the back-end of the business, but as far as I know any connections, writing, etc was his. AnandTech was already a top hardware review site and he was a millionaire from it before he even graduated high school in 2000.

ViRGE (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

deleted a paragraph

Unfortunately, the moderators chosen have not proven to operate in a professional and thoughtful manner and it is causing problems within the forum. You can still find quality information through the website, but it is recommended you avoid the forums if you value freedom of speech. Also, the moderators/admins seem to have a high school clique mentality and are allowed to post abusive and rude comments in the members' threads. The "senior" mods allow and support this behavior; thus festering a culture of adolescent attitudes, and bullying people, through the abuse of their power on the forums.

Should be obvious why... 58.174.130.182 (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Apple

Is AnandTech owned by Apple ? 90.192.59.252 (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep

The article is written about one of the oldest and most recognized websites on the Internet. Check Archive.org and you will see. History goes back to the 90s. It is one of the first of its kind and was begun by a kid. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"About us"

Their page on that currently says only "Work on our site is ongoing - we'll have more info here soon!". Tijfo098 (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious

Probably not citable here except maybe for the forum's atmosphere and participants, but this is certainly hilarious. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

14 or 15?

Apparently CNN (or rather Fortune) can't make up its mind about that: 14 15. I'm more inclined to believe the longer, more in-depth story, so I've cited that one. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

On his own website is says 14!--79.69.96.179 (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it's just an advertisement. — Morsecoder (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I contested the delete. See my comments. The article is about a historically unique and significant website. One of my recollections is the notability of the person and the viewpoints presented on the site, a decade or so before the ubiquity of blogging and similar sites. The press coverage from the 1990s attests to my recollection. I like to saw logs! (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism From Other Sites and Expert Users

AnandTech has often been criticised for being pro-Intel, even to the point of users accusing Anand Lai Shimpi of being on Intel's payroll. While there is no hard evidence of this, it is pretty clear that whenever possible, Intel products are shown in the best possible light while AMD (and other) products are mildly put down, sometimes to the point of using FUD. AnandTech is notorious for comparing AMD products against Intel products that sometimes cost twice as much seemingly to preserve the illusion of "Intel Superiority". In one glaring case, AnandTech reviewed the AMD A8-3500M laptop platform. Instead of comparing it to similarly-priced Intel-based laptops and focusing on the Llano's vastly superior graphics engine which was the centrepoint of Llano's value, AnandTech instead focused on how the CPU part of Llano was inferior to SandyBridge's CPU part. When the inevitable gaming tests were done in the review, only a small number of games were tested and the laptops used to compare mostly had far more costly i5/i7 processors with discrete graphics while the Llano had to make due with its Mobility Radeon HD 6620G IGP. This IGP was intended to face off against Intel's horribly-executed HD 3000 IGP found in almost all Intel-based laptops under $800. Instead, AnandTech used laptops that in at least one case, cost more than double the price of the A8-based laptop and tried to pass it off as a fair test without at least pointing out the huge disparity in price. (Essentially saying that a Honda Civic is crap because it can't outrun a Corvette.) All other review sites such as Tom's Hardware, The Tech Report, Hexus and Hard OCP lauded the Llano's superior graphics and gaming capability leaving AnandTech as the only "review" site that wasn't the least bit impressed with Llano. As a result, AnandTech has become a haven for Intel "fanboys" because most other techies who aren't fanboys tend to not go there anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.89.231 (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

2013 Redesign

Should we mention the 2013 redesign?--79.69.96.179 (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AnandTech. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213020938/http://www.flybridge.com/team/Matthew-Witheiler/detailed-bio to http://www.flybridge.com/team/Matthew-Witheiler/detailed-bio

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)