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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (163219)	3/29/2002 6:57:10 PM
From: AK2004	Respond to of 186894

bmw re: all QuantiSpeed does is make up some lost megahertz at one point we both agreed that p4 is better regardless ipc because it made up with higher frequency and hence relatively to pIII it was a better chip. But key word was performance and you seemed to forgot about that part. I did not expect any better from you though

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (163219)	3/29/2002 7:46:56 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: I agree that it would be a great idea to establish a 3rd party standard for labeling performance, but I also think that there are many difficulties involved. Bapco was supposed to be such a 3rd party, but would you agree that they can fairly and accurately label performance? Well, let's see. Bapco is funded by Intel, did that affect their benchmarks? For sysmark 2001, they found a program with a bug in it that gave P4 huge advantage. So they ran that program in the background, for all the other benchmarks, making P4 look better in all the benchmarks, not just the one where P4 had an advantage due to a known bug. For Sysmark 2002, Bapco stopped letting anyone know what was actually being run, so that they couldn't be caught forging false results as easily as they were caught with sysmark 2000. So my answer is that no, I wouldn't agree that Bapco fairly and accurately labels performance. I like the Tim Wilkens / U of I Supercomputer Center Sciencemark because it's open source which stops swindlers like Bapco from faking results with it. w3.physics.uiuc.edu It has been proven that nothing but open source benchmarks can be relied upon - other benchmarks, like Sysmark, are primarily used by cheaters and frauds like Intel.