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: eracer who wrote (189086)	3/8/2006 5:35:00 PM
From: AK2004	Respond to of 275872

re: own custom UT benchmark is not credible and yet you think intel's controlled test is credible......

To: eracer who wrote (189086)	3/8/2006 5:42:43 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

re: own custom UT benchmark is not credible Tom developed his own UT2004 benchmark because some graphics card manufacturers were caught cheating on the standard benchmarks. He developed it before either FX-60 or (for sure!) Conroe existed, so how could it be biased? Petz

To: eracer who wrote (189086)	3/8/2006 6:26:30 PM
From: pgerassi	Respond to of 275872

Eracer: That is just the point. There is not enough information from Anand's or Hexus's articles to allow anyone to duplicate the tests. There is no mention of the HD used, the exact video driver used, the benchmark used for the FPS numbers, the DDR modules used, what was used as input to encode, etc. No one can duplicate the results based on the information presented. There is too much critical data missing. Heck I could setup an AMD FX-60 on a DFI RD480 and screw up things like running the HD w/o DMA enabled, PCI-E at half-speed, C&Q set to max battery life mode, video drivers set to have very safe (read slow) settings and so on while still having the same BIOS boot screen displayed. One has to make too many assumptions just to attempt to duplicate the results and any one or more of them could be a gotcha. Heck you complain that Tom's hardware uses a "special" UT2004 demo. Then why not complain that Anand used a "special" Intel supplied demo? A "modified" video driver? Heck Anand didn't even complain that the BIOS didn't see the FX-60 properly and yet "As far as we could tell, there was not something fishy going on with the benchmarks". Given that others already spotted many flaws with even the little information given, Anand should be ashamed. As far as Hexus.net, the PC Mark Memory score is telling. The FX-60@2.8 got about 4500 which is about the same score (4445) as a FX-60@2.6 got with 2-3-2-6/2T on a Asus A8N32-SLI MB. The FX-57 running at 2.8GHz got 4745. Thus the memory on the RD480 was not actually running at 2-2-2-5/1T, but more like 3-3-3-10/2T probably due to the bad BIOS version. The CPU score looks to be ok (~5600) for a 2.8GHz FX-60 given that it runs completely in a tiny L1 and that a 2.6GHz FX-60 got 5218 on that same A8N32-SLI. So even Hexus.net didn't catch on that the memory wasn't running at the settings claimed. That shows that their credibility must also be questioned. Pete