noob2222 :
@juan
Rofl, still stuck on that mystery ES on cosmology? If anyone had a kaveri cpu, could they run the bionic benchmark and show this tool that the ES was not kaveri. @1.8 ghz it scored 3300 pts roughly so at 3.6 ghz if that ES is actual kaveri should only score ~ 6600 pts.
Your the one saying its kaveri not me. LEARN TO READ. only thing I pointed out is that the blog post claining "ermago 37% more ipc" was noting but 100% fake.
Aside from that, AMD is abandoning x86 servers right?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20140117215942_AMD_Develops_Behemoth_Chip_with_Sixteen_Cores_on_Single_Die.html
oops, got that one wrong too didn't ya. ERMAGO its not on the roadmap, must be fake.
The only mystery is why you repeat the same flawed argument which was corrected a dozen of times before.
Also that recent 16-core rumor was debunked here at least two times.
jdwii :
Passmark is not even a accurate benchmark
I don't know what you mean by accuracy (this is a term usually misinterpreted and I don't know if it is your case or if you are using it properly).
* It represent real-world performance much better than SuperPi, CB, Sysmark...
Passmark scores have been discussed in the past in this thread and by more than one poster. I note that you only question its accuracy
now, when the Passmark score measured for Kaveri agrees (within a 2% error) with the value predicted. My bet is that if the error was of 63% many of my 'fans' here would be posting about how wrong I was and nobody would question accuracy.
* And not only the general public! In the below link you can find someone using the term accuracy
incorrectly to refer to benchmarks. The correct term for what he is reporting is "imprecise".
http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/15/engadget-primed-using-benchmarks/#accurate