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 (189146)	3/9/2006 1:50:58 AM
From: pgerassi	Respond to of 275872

Eracer: Give it up... You can't win. Fact! Intel used a MB and BIOS that got 10% lower scores than the settings would indicate on a quality MB and BIOS. Most MBs used in benchmarks get the same PCMark 2005 Memory score with most variations explained by small clock speed differences. Being low by an order of magnitude (>10 standard deviations) shows that this isn't some random problem, but a deliberate attempt to slow down AMD's entry. They got caught with their pants down and no amount of denial by you can change that. And if one parameter is off by 10%, there are likely to be others. Which makes all the other supposed benchmarks invalid. Give it up. Intel's comparison is flawed, big time. Pete

To: eracer who wrote (189146)	3/9/2006 2:12:17 AM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Wait a minute. Intel is the one who has to PROVE that the AMD system was set up optimally for their benchmarks to have any validity. They won't and they can't. In fact, we have proved that the AMD system was NOT set up optimally. * they used an old BIOS that is known to have compatibility problems with the specific graphic configuration they chose * the memory bandwidth performance lagged behind other published results * the BIOS did not recognize the CPU, and, by the way CPU recognition occurs BEFORE any overriding of the default multiplier chosen in the BIOS * since the CPU was not recognized it is highly likely that the temperature of the CPU was not measured correctly, since each stepping has its own thermistor characteristics and its own algorithm for transitioning between p-states. This might have led to the CPU frequency being reduced by a notch or two during operation. * the ATI drivers used obviously did have specially coded paths for the Conroe, otherwise they would not have been used. No respectable site should allow this without doing a regression test to determine if the driver is capable of handling ALL games and not just the few that were chosen by Intel. It's easy for a driver to optimize for a few benchmarks if it doesn't have to handle all the special timing and sequencing cases of general operation. Petz