Agner's is not a public news site but his own personal blog that he lets others read / post on. He makes many of his own libraries and messages around lots in ASM. That's how he's able to pinpoint exactly what Intel is doing and the backdoor tricks their implementing to buff their benchmark numbers. There are some people on there trying to make vender-neutral libraries that replace things like the Intel math library or some of the vector libraries. He's about as far from a "fanboy" that you can get.
ah, now that makes more sense. i guess it wasn't right for me to seek objectivity from a personal blog. after i go past the myriad of (imo) sensetional 'cripple amd' headlines, there are actual informative stuff in there e.g. how intel's dispatcher works, how intel flip-flopped amd with fma instruction sets and possibly held back several of amd's instruction sets from gaining popularity and so on.
a little reflux of the newly 'leaked' amd 'slides' (salt is a must here ): http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20130530215002_AMD_Issues_Roadmap_Update_No_Breakthroughs_Expected.html
i post this after noticing on the new 2012-2013 server 'roadmap' where steamroller opterons seem to have disappeared (. until now, steamroller opterons have stayed on the server roadmap despite dt disappearing. i remember fanboys [strike]incessantly[/strike] enthusiastically claiming sr is on track because of opterons. this new roadmap is pretty much a slap on the face on that. :lol:
here's my skepticism: usual amd slides have an nda notice at the bottom, with dates of nda lifting and certain other bits and pieces for easy 'verification for authenticity'. these, on the other hand, have none of that. even jaguar-based opteron x isn't on that (the old roadmap didn't have it either, mind you). so think whatever you want. i don't trust these fully. also keep in mind that multiple sites seem to be quoting the same source instead of individually verifying the 'leaks'. wccdefguesswhatidontknow?answer:anythingrelatedtotech.com only posted the apu 'roadmap', not the server one.
Sites such as Anadtech continue using biased benchmarks like sysmark and Cinebench in their AMD vs Intel comparisons. They used biased benchmarks in their recent 'review' of jaguar. People at forums complained about their use of Cinebench and their hiding of information to general users. Moderators such as idontcare tried to justify their biased reviews by accusing users of not excercising due diligence when purchasing!!!
The whole thread is full of interesting info, including the dark history of Sysmark and detailed analysis of how non-Intel chips can get almost double performance when are faked as Intel chips
When more people started calling Anandtech biased. Moderators closed the thread.
I put this here because I see people often cite their 'reviews' here at Toms forums when attacking AMD.
sigh. this post looks much more like knocking anandtech than providing anything informative about cinebench biasing towards intel cpus (nothing new to add) or how amd should raise public awareness to drop cinebench(versions that bias for intel) from being widely used. the sharikou link uses data from 2003 and 2009, this is 2013. the agner site is p.i.t.a. to navigate. both sites are even harder to get to relevant information through anti-intel tirades and pro-amd rants. both, including pro-intel rant and anti-amd tirades, are useless to me. my point was not about what intel did. i know about those already. my point was about how amd can fight the intel bias and raise awareness. amd being the smaller company doesn't have the resources to fight intel. but with some creativity and strategy, they can raise enough public awareness and industrywide awareness against benchmarks biased for intel cpus. that's what i was pointing out. i simply don't care if you(or anyone else) got your feelings hurt by anandtech forum members and posted here to vent. :lol:
Cinebench uses ICC and ICC has not changed its Cripple-AMD function since the FTC settlement. The only difference is that by legal reasons Intel adds now a disclaimer to the description of its compiler. The rest is the same: Sysmark, Cinebench... continue being biased benchmarks.
That is why Anand moderators could not offer any sensible explanation of why they use biased benchmarks in the jaguar 'review' and blamed readers/buyers.
AMD is not the only damaged by this attitude of some review sites. If you read the thread, users are damaged as well, because they are deciding their purchase (AMD vs Intel) in base to biased information. Therefore not only AMD has to fight this, but users also have to fight.
Therefore don't only ask what can do AMD to fight this kind of injustice, but what you can do to defend your rights as buyer.
You can spread sites as Agner blog to people who does not know what Intel did/does. You can ask to review sites' moderators why are using biased benchmarks in their reviews, and so on.
I hear what your saying De5. one of the possible problems is the "settlement" from the AMD-Intel lawsuit. AMD had to sign a hush-clause to recieve 1.5B.
They may not be able to bring the truth to light properly as they should be doing ... another smart move by Intel to take advantage of AMD's stolen profits. The problem is that it leaves everything to the general public to inform those who don't know what happened (figure 99% who don't know vs 1% who do).
Thats my guess on why AMD isn't blowing the lid on all these "biased benchmarks".
Cinebench uses ICC and ICC has not changed its Cripple-AMD function since the FTC settlement. The only difference is that by legal reasons Intel adds now a disclaimer to the description of its compiler. The rest is the same: Sysmark, Cinebench... continue being biased benchmarks.
That is why Anand moderators could not offer any sensible explanation of why they use biased benchmarks in the jaguar 'review' and blamed readers/buyers.
AMD is not the only damaged by this attitude of some review sites. If you read the thread, users are damaged as well, because they are deciding their purchase (AMD vs Intel) in base to biased information. Therefore not only AMD has to fight this, but users also have to fight.
Therefore don't only ask what can do AMD to fight this kind of injustice, but what you can do to defend your rights as buyer.
You can spread sites as Agner blog to people who does not know what Intel did/does. You can ask to review sites' moderators why are using biased benchmarks in their reviews, and so on.
No.
because the first move(i.e. dropping cinebench and intel-biased benchmarks, especially synthetic ones) has to be from amd. and it has to be public and with irrefutable proof. it isn't 2009 anymore, now people are far more connected and social media is a p.r. force to be reckoned with. if amd can't do it directly then get someone else who is close enough. smarter strategizing will prevail in the end. i cannot stress enough why this is important for amd's progress in marketshare.
no matter what individuals do, nothing will change if amd themselves don't push for more, directly and otherwise.
i don't care what someone else on some other site did as anyone could find evidence of amdzone(and some other amd biased site) members convincing people into buying less performing amd products(that's right, not everything from amd is up to par or above). when individuals do this, it easily turns into an endless back and forth of disagreement which ends(or doesn't end at all) in absolutely nothing. personally, i don't regard agner (despite the useful insights) as be all and end all of intel's underhanded tactics and amd's victimization. there are far more capable, powerful people with actual influence for investigating matters like this.
i am sorry, but AMD has to be in the front and center for this.
noob2222 :
I hear what your saying De5. one of the possible problems is the "settlement" from the AMD-Intel lawsuit. AMD had to sign a hush-clause to recieve 1.5B.
They may not be able to bring the truth to light properly as they should be doing ... another smart move by Intel to take advantage of AMD's stolen profits. The problem is that it leaves everything to the general public to inform those who don't know what happened (figure 99% who don't know vs 1% who do).
Thats my guess on why AMD isn't blowing the lid on all these "biased benchmarks".
i think amd, with some research, can find a work around (heck, intel found holes in the settlement). what i am asking for is actually a smartly strategized p.r. campaign, not monetary support or some kind of legal/patent dispute. hint: amd's focus should be on the (biased compiler-using) softwares, Not intel themselves. amd is smaller than intel, but i am pretty sure they're bigger than developers. by pointing out where the bias is happening, they alert more people instead of accusing intel directly and asking devs to change compiler. the rest will take it's due course.
edit: now that arm is successfully pressuring intel, pc sales are shrinking, wintel alliance is on the brink, intel is hungrily eyeing the marketshare that amd is left with. there hasn't been a more important time for doing this.
edit:
@juanrga: afaik atoms do not support avx (may be sse4 too? i forgot) but jaguar does. so cinebench 11.5 benches shouldn't be that much of an issue, in this specific case.
Kirby and Intel are probably two of the most unethical yet rich companies, I am guessing its alright since they make you fast CPU's we can just turn a blind eye.
Now the common mentality is to see it as a serial process, and the act of searching and replacing ~is~ a serial process. What isn't serial is the data your working on. Assuming you have a 100,000 word document, how would we go about multi-threading that process (purely academic)? First you break the work load into chunks, either by having a pre-set "core count" variable, or by running a quick function at program start to determine maximum "threads" or what not. You can then dynamically break that 100,000 word data set into X numbered sets of 100,000/X words each with the breaking function set to ensure the data point start / ends are aligned to words. You can then run the "search and replace" function on all those sets simultaneously.
Ok, great. You do this. Scalability increases. Performance also drops off a cliff. Why? Because you have to take the processing time to break the document into chunks of some arbitrary size, create the necessary threads and control structures, then do the actual processing, pass the results back to the main thread, then finally parse the results. Doing this actually takes LONGER then just sticking with a single thread and brute forcing the problem, unless working on a VERY large (a few hundred pages in Word, for instance) document.
So yes, while your approach is better (academically), its a lot slower (in reality). The time to run a search-and-replace function is minimal anyway, so the code complexity and the loss of performance for smaller documents doesn't justify going in this direction.
despite steamroller pretty much disappearing from recently leaked cpu roadmaps, rumors of kaveri launching in 2014 with new socket, there is still some silver lining.
intel is taking celeron and pentium brands to silvermont cpus! no more embarrassing bd/pd cpus/apus in gaming. silvermont is crippled by intel to protect their high end while jaguar is far more feature rich, let alone kaveri (may be even richland). not only that, silvermont atoms are unlikely to be clocked around 3.0 ghz or close (to my newbie knowledge).
+5.
the moment i scrolled down to see the block was a surprise. i didn't think they'd block richland related stuff since it's out already. now i wanna know too.
Kirby and Intel are probably two of the most unethical yet rich companies, I am guessing its alright since they make you fast CPU's we can just turn a blind eye.
You can bet any company that has made over a billion dollars has done something unethical. That's just the nature of capitalism.
That is why Anand moderators could not offer any sensible explanation of why they use biased benchmarks in the jaguar 'review' and blamed readers/buyers.
AMD is not the only damaged by this attitude of some review sites. If you read the thread, users are damaged as well, because they are deciding their purchase (AMD vs Intel) in base to biased information. Therefore not only AMD has to fight this, but users also have to fight.
Therefore don't only ask what can do AMD to fight this kind of injustice, but what you can do to defend your rights as buyer.
You can spread sites as Agner blog to people who does not know what Intel did/does. You can ask to review sites' moderators why are using biased benchmarks in their reviews, and so on.
Again, that doesn't solve the root issue, since internet is free speech, it only serves to polarize the discussions. AnandT is biased (many know), but on discussions pum! charts and numbers of AT are shoved in everybody faces, and ppl waste an enormous amount of time discussing it no matter what, meaning they use "willingful eager users" to do their fight for them, and you can't convince those otherwise so easily ; " AT bad ? you are trolling, and an AMD fanboy"... " no you are blind and an intel fanboy" ... " "no you are this... and this and that sucks" ... and worst and worst...
See what i mean ? ... leads to nowhere but very aggressive posts.
Politely exposed that those are not prove of evidence of any argument, don't click on them... and its not only AT, its the all review "business" that with current methodologies and instruments has a tremendous lack of meaning.
SOLUTION
Attack the message not the messengers...
if is *HARDWARE* that is to be measured than software must not change, or you'll have no reference points .
Which is *exactly* what happens now, benchmark software have no guaranties of anything not even origin, and since is "software" and prone to bugs and errors, you don't even know if the build x last month is the same of the build y this month(how many times did a bench failed on some test machine ? is it hardware fault or software ?), that is, it can change a lot to, voiding the all deal of consistency and meaning.
Ask for md5 signatures, at least you would know if there are any changes in those binaries.
That is THE ONLY THING that users can do, fight for immutable benchmark software, anything else you can't force no one to nothing (its not legal even).
I kinda hate Semiacurate for doing this :
http://semiaccurate.com/2013/05/31/amds-richland-is-hiding-a-big-secret/
JAYDEEJOHN :
Charlie & company needs to make a living, but at least we know more than we did....er..OK maybe not
Yes S|A is in the business of selling *rumors*...
I'm not judging, but i stand in complete awe ! ... who in their right mind would buy a rumor! ... and i though IT was about *science* not rumors.
If that proves to be a consistent business model, then everything is lost, because the parties with the most cloth and manipulative power, by rumor, intrigue and deception will end up winning *EVERYTHING*...
)
:lol:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram