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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ptanner who wrote (87492)	8/23/2002 7:41:25 AM
From: TGPTNDR	Respond to of 275872

PT, That made some pretty interesting reading. Thanks for the link. The Inquirer has a blurb up at theinquirer.net I'd imagine this is going to get around pretty quickly. -tgp

To: ptanner who wrote (87492)	8/23/2002 8:54:46 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 275872

The crooks at Intel should get some jail time - this is pure, unadulterated fraud. P4 is crap, and snake oil merchants at Intel faked results to sell their trash. An example of this is the Adobe PhotoShop component of SysMark. In the 2001 version of the BAPCo/Intel product, 13 different filters were used. On eight of these 13 filters the Athlon XP 2000+ beat the 2GHz Northwood P4. However, in SysMark 2002 every single one of these eight filters where removed -- again, tasks where the Athlon XP beat the Pentium 4 -- and were replaced with repeated filters that the Pentium 4 executed faster than the Athlon XP. Intel itself has been providing software engineers for the development of the SysMark products. When pressed further, the AMD representative admitted that it is likely that all SysMark development so far has been conducted internally at Intel by Intel. vanshardware.com

To: ptanner who wrote (87492)	8/23/2002 1:22:31 PM
From: andreas_wonisch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Pat, Re: Van's Hardware has their article on Bapco SysMark up here Interesting to see that what many here suspected for some time is actually true: Intel is guilty of benchmark fraud. While the fact itself is IMO a scandal there's virtually nothing that can be done about it. I don't think it's illegal to chose biased benchmark subroutines even if you are an "independent" benchmark developer. So what conclusion should be drawn from it? Just don't use benchmark suites any more. They are always artificial and can be easily manipulated. A much better way (although somewhat more time-consuming) is to use actual applications. It's also more helpful for the user: If he uses a certain application he knows exactly what improvements he can expect. Since Anand, Tom etc. already benchmark a lot of different games they should just add more "real-life" applications and can the benchmark suites completely. Andreas