Yep, this Mr. McCullough from Aberdeen is really a piece:
"..equivalency rating is no longer factual
and scientific for the following reasons:
numerous performance improvements
have been released by application software
suppliers; the 2001 edition bench-
marks used by AMD now have 2002 versions;
and Intel introduced..." (p.2)
So, benchmark fudging and re-compillations are allowed
to take advantages of the "inherent" P4 "streaming"
architecture in Aberdeen's mind, but it is no-no
for Athlon:
"AMD and Microsoft enhanced Media Player, a component
of SYSmark 2001, allows Media Player to take advantage
of inherent Athlon XP instructions." (p.5)
What a hoot, Engel-speak <ggg>.
They also are complaining about "inconsistencies".
What an idiot: this McCullogh does not realize that all
application-based benchmarks are noticeably affected
even how the hard drive is partitioned, how the system
files were created historically, by the order how previous
applications were installed and uninstalled,
was the drive cloned or freshly installed, etc.,
dozens of "inconsistencies" may happen...
Also:
"Intel Beats AMD on Intel
Intel scores at BAPCo beat the results reported by
AMD for the same processor on SYSmark 2001.
The same is true with Quake III Arena Demo Arena II.
It should not be surprising that Intel knows how
to tune its systems better than AMD."
The guy has no clue about video driver's importance.
It is well known that a heavy optimized code for P4 also
improves performance of Athlon, but to much lesser degree.
No wonder the latest and best Intel drivers also
increase scores of Athlon systems, so what the catch?
Yes, the report is full of sh1t.
- Ali |
