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: Joe NYC who wrote (170038)	8/25/2002 9:54:53 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Joe, Re: "Sling mud? Uncovering the truth behind benchmark cheating is mud? Why is Bapco hiding their methodology, and you have to hack it to find out what it is they are testing? It's mud when it is false." Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. As much as you'd like to consider this a single argument, there are actually two issues involved. The first is whether Intel is cheating on benchmarks, and making it look like they are from an independent committee. I think we already covered this one in great detail, both on the forums, and in PM. You know how I feel on this issue, since my opinion hasn't changed. Moving onto the second issue, we have Van Smith, who tried to obfuscate a mud-slinging operation by AMD by claiming that he was the one who found certain discrepancies behind the SysMark 2002 benchmark. The matter of fact is that AMD approached Tom Pabst several months ago, and when he refused to be part of AMD's execration, they moved on to a more fanatical journalist with less integrity. The "point" that you are missing is that AMD set this up to "seem like" an independent researcher came up with the findings on their own, in order to make the PR that much more sensationalized. This ought to be despised just as much as the notion of Intel cheating in benchmarks. According to you, Intel's precarious position last year gave them a reason to stoop low enough to optimize benchmarks in their favor without anyone knowing; yet, when AMD also makes a decision to underhandedly improve their competitive position, while also defocusing attention from themselves in the matter, you are having trouble seeing this as a similar matter of disapprobation. Look, and take a step back. Ethically, no one should stand for a company making their product look better without disclosing the special procedures that they required to make it that way. Likewise, no one should stand for a company that aims at ruining the reputation of their competitor and affiliated organization by underhandedly giving exclusive information to someone from the media without using themselves as a reference. It's a fact that Van Smith didn't even verify AMD's claims with testing of his own. He was simply their PR puppet that copied and pasted their own hard work. I won't condemn AMD for this, though. Companies tend to make bad decisions when times are tough, and indeed, times are very hard on AMD right now. However, I think that they, like Intel, should come clean on their respective issues, and actually make an effort to improve the industry, rather than bickering amongst themselves, and making a big PR show of it all. Just MHO. wbmw