Read the full review here.

Suggestions:

1) Use more realistic gaming benchmarks (e.g. Far Cry, Doom 3, HL2, etc.) instead of synthetic benchmarks like 3DMark.
2) No mention of the acoustic properties of the system idle and under load. This is very important if someone wants to consider using this as a HTPC.
3) Related to #2, no mention of the fan model numbers/specs.
4) Nothing mentioned about how the included PSU handled the system (e.g multimeter measurements).
5) No mentioning of the video cards used at all.

In all honesty it just looked like you threw in a couple of synthetic benchmarks and that was it. No real-world benchmarks. Anyone can run some synthetic benchmarks and make a "review." Also the comparison versus a Athlon 64 isn't very fair at all. The comparisons need to be kept as fair as possible.

It was a good review overall, but I wanted to know what every part used was (video card, RAM, etc.) in both systems.

I gave it a seven.

I'm guessing (but you didn't say explicitly) that the computer has no "normal" PCI slot. I don't know whether this is good or bad (but I'm leaning toward bad), but I do think that this should have been brought up in the review.

To second the opinion of the previous posters -- I think the review was thrown together in far too short a time. I don't know how busy you folks are, but this project just needed more time devoted to it. That said, I gave you a 9.




R.

There were also no mention of the tempature, both stocl (load/idle) and overclocker (load/idle)

Also, an explanation or guess of why Sandra prefered the older system would be nice.