"I never said that."
Maybe not in those words. But you have consistently and repeatedly held up clock rate as the "industry standard".
"But to create a unilateral benchmark that mimics MHz numbers has nothing to do with reality."
Well, based on the experience with SPEC, it is a natural thing to do. First, the SPEC ratings followed MIPS ratings. Then it chose to rate in multiples of a particular model of a Sun workstation. I don't know what they are using now as their base measure. AMD claims that their benchmark is against their Tbird. Assuming that is true, then their numbering scheme is fairly natural. They could have normalized it to something like 1.5+, 15+, 150+ or the chosen 1500+, only the center two avoid what you are complaining about. Sorry, I didn't catch your earlier post, you were taking a more rational stance then. If you feel so strongly about it, then why don't you write Intel and suggest that they do something like that? It would be a good counter to what AMD's quantispeed. Intel will need to do something fairly soon, else they will be having a lot of trouble justifying the low clock rate of Itanium...
" I'm either "ignorant, stupid or deceptive""
Sorry, you are if you argue that AMD is "perverting the industry standard", i.e. clock rate. Either you never had the information about why clock rate is a bad metric, you got the information but didn't understand it, or you understand it, but choose to ignore it because it doesn't give Intel an advantage. There just are not a lot of other ways to view it.
"With that pleasant thought in mind, I'll end this side of the argument, confident that you will be banned from the thread."
There is a procedure, use it. But then you wouldn't have anything to whine about, would you? |
