Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer who wrote (82950)	12/14/1999 6:08:00 PM
From: Scot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572145

So are you suggesting that Compaq would lie by artificially inflating CuMine scores when by so doing they are thereby displacing their own pride and joy product, the Alpha, as the fastest integer processor in the world? I don't think so. My point is that the veracity and accuracy of the posted SPEC scores are not, as you inferred, determined by some independent review committee; the scores are generated by each licensee. Those scores are not warranted as true by SPEC. You, however, are clearly stating that AMD lied about their publish benchmarks. [U]sed in their phoney CuMine benchmarks.... What is your proof? Have you notified SPEC to inform them that AMD is in violation of their software license? I didn't see anything on the SPEC site about "AMD...rogue benchmarker." Their results are non-reproduceable and therefore invalid. That's not logical. My understanding of SPEC is that it is a benchmark of different elements of computer systems. Computer systems, in general, have different components, therefore, the need for benchmarks. Are you suggesting that the primary SPEC criteria is reproduceability? How do you know it is not reproduceable? What is your proof? Do you have an Athlon at home that is identical to the AMD test bed for the Athlon integer scores? -Scot