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: Charles Gryba who wrote (169821)	8/23/2002 8:57:03 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

The crooks at Intel should get some jail time - this is pure, unadulterated fraud. These aren't 12 year kids from the ghetto that don't know any better. A promise that they won't do it again isn't good enough. P4 is crap, and the snake oil merchants at Intel faked test results to push their dope on unsuspecting buyers. 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: Charles Gryba who wrote (169821)	8/23/2002 10:10:06 AM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Thread, I just read the pdf with AMD's findings regarding BapCo. I never subscribed to the notion that benchmarks were intentionally cooked to Intel's favour before ( except for the WME checking for "genuine Intel" before enabling SSE ). I'd like to hear your HONEST opinions on this. Please put party lines aside. If this is true it's unacceptable. I'll wait and let BapCo respond to the charges but I'd like to ask you a question. How outraged are you when AMD touts benchmarks that utilize x87 FPU instructions instead of SSE2? Is this a biased benchmark? EP