-
T-Mobile Home Internet: Revisiting 5G connectivity for the home after two years
-
Multi-million dollar Cheyenne supercomputer auction ends with $480,085 bid — buyer walked away with 8,064 Intel Xeon Broadwell CPUs, 313TB DDR4-2400 ECC RAM, and some water leaks
spud
Distinguished
- Feb 17, 2001
- 3,406
- 0
- 20,780
I would appreciate, and the forum readers would likely like to know what data you have that shows woodcrest losing to Opteron, of the Spec2000 tests I have seen todate, all have been won by woodcrest over the 280 or 285 opty's that were compared.
Also, the debate here is actually between Conroe and Athlon in essence, consumer level PCs for desktop and notebooks. You certainly seem to confuse the issue between a personal and super computer. Yeah, supercomputers are cool, since you say you are involved with them we will take that at face value --- but normal Joe Bob Consumer cannot affort super computer time and do not necessarily want to calculate the trajectory of quarks and leptons during a supercolliding collision, what good does that do them? It isn't entertaining, it isn't fun to watch, I can't use a mouse with it, nor a joystick. Nope, all I can do is setup the batch file, format the data, and submit the job --- what comes out are pages and pages of tables, numbers and figures --- no doubt a complex mathematical accomplishment that only means something to the researcher who submitted the job in order to finish their thesis and graduate.
Nope, most people (and by the way, most CPU sold) just want to play a game of Doom 3, balance the checkbook, send an email, or post on TH Forumz. Your insistence that a CPU is no good unless it is hyperclustered in a 50,000 CPU array is useless to just about all, if not all, readers on this forum.
And just what is your definition of a scientific control when benchmarking two competing platforms?? Do you know what a scientific control is?
So enlighten us how the above testing was 'fradulent'. By definition, fradulent means deceptive, misleading, and false, how could such a huge cross section of data all in agreement constitue fraud?
Also, you never did explain yourself on how Wikipedia is peer reviewed.
Jack
Jack if your are a PHD in Chemistry liike you claim and a Post doc in Physics at the Univesity of Texas you should know from the way the tests are conducted that the tests are not done with the proper controls in place and are not ACCEPTED benchmarks conducted in hte stated manner by the testing authorities. Something you also need to realize is eeach of those tests is "sponsored" either directly or indiectly by Intel. AMD did the same thing the last couple of yesrs. If you really have a PHD in chemistry then would you do your doctoral dissertation based on such undocumented testing for lab work knowing that there are standards set for the testing and how much luck would you have defending your dissertation when you don't follow the standard methodology. When all you can find are tests run without scientific controls , you are like one of the writers of papers for Pope GregoryVI debunking Copernicus and Gallileo. As to documentation the test results are posted there for Spec.org at the University of Minnesota and at the Riken Inst. in Japan. Just follow the links. I gave done the hard part for you. The University of Minnesota and the Riken Institute are a lot better qualified and more prestigeous than your on line tabloid press that doesn't follow scientific and engineering proceedures. Having looked at them can you show me even one of them that followed the standards set by ANSI/ASTM? Based on this little performance I have to say that your claim to have a PHD in chemistry from UT is BS. A truly qualified PHD would be as horrified at the sloppy testing proceedures as I am and you certainly would NOT be citing them as proof.
Moo.
You Have A Better Solution?
Action_Man
Splendid
- Jan 7, 2004
- 3,857
- 0
- 22,780
quantumsheep
Distinguished
- Dec 10, 2005
- 2,341
- 0
- 19,790
cyborg_ninja-117
Distinguished
- Aug 1, 2006
- 327
- 0
- 18,780
Proof? You don't? Oh, well then STFU IEEE boy.
Pass/succeeds. IMO intel and AMD always send their cpus to individual reviewers like coolaler, hardware sites ect, the people that can be trusted. They send it because they want people to know that their product is better than the other company (w/ proof, not biased)
Action_Man
Splendid
- Jan 7, 2004
- 3,857
- 0
- 22,780
Proof? You don't? Oh, well then STFU IEEE boy.
Pass/succeeds. IMO intel and AMD always send their cpus to individual reviewers like coolaler, hardware sites ect, the people that can be trusted. They send it because they want people to know that their product is better than the other company (w/ proof, not biased)
But they're not hardware sites.
SuperFly03
Distinguished
- Dec 2, 2004
- 2,514
- 0
- 20,790
I find very little validity in your comments, as people has stated previously. I find your AMD fanboyism appalling. Please take yourself to the bathroom and flush it down the toilet.
Benchmarks are as impartial as you can really get. If you compare current product offerings within the same price range and target market, then its as valid as it can get (assuming general hardware configuration is equal i.e. ram, mobo, etc.).
The point of benchmarks is to give the general public information so they can make an informed decision. It is the consumer's job to make sense of it all and extrapolate a meaning for them. In reality some consumers may get it "wrong," but that gets back to the point of brand loyalty. I don't judge a processor solely based on benchmarks, but rather as a piece of the pie.
You need to calm yourself down and quit freaking out. You act as if there are extreme baises built into benchmarks, which isn't inherently true.
If you had any reason you would see the failure in your own so called "logic." Next time you feel like going on a rant take 2 minutes and breathe before you write because you will make alot more sense. As it stands, I find your arguement entirely unreasonable and illogical, please sit in the corner with a dunce hat on.
Benchmarks are as impartial as you can really get. If you compare current product offerings within the same price range and target market, then its as valid as it can get (assuming general hardware configuration is equal i.e. ram, mobo, etc.).
The point of benchmarks is to give the general public information so they can make an informed decision. It is the consumer's job to make sense of it all and extrapolate a meaning for them. In reality some consumers may get it "wrong," but that gets back to the point of brand loyalty. I don't judge a processor solely based on benchmarks, but rather as a piece of the pie.
You need to calm yourself down and quit freaking out. You act as if there are extreme baises built into benchmarks, which isn't inherently true.
If you had any reason you would see the failure in your own so called "logic." Next time you feel like going on a rant take 2 minutes and breathe before you write because you will make alot more sense. As it stands, I find your arguement entirely unreasonable and illogical, please sit in the corner with a dunce hat on.
ches111
Distinguished
- Feb 4, 2006
- 1,958
- 0
- 19,780
IEEE or I triple E as it is said in the business is:
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
They typically set standards for interfaces/electronics/methodologies/processes.
Have you heard of IEEE 1394 or Firewire? 1394 is the Standard for Firewire.
They are better known as the standards board.
They also have a large number of standards documents here:
http://www.ieee.org/products/onlinepubs/info/licensing.html
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
They typically set standards for interfaces/electronics/methodologies/processes.
Have you heard of IEEE 1394 or Firewire? 1394 is the Standard for Firewire.
They are better known as the standards board.
They also have a large number of standards documents here:
http://www.ieee.org/products/onlinepubs/info/licensing.html
Viperabyss
Distinguished
- Mar 7, 2006
- 573
- 0
- 18,980
wow.. that was a painful long entry to read...
first of all, you provided no factual data as of "Intel funded these benchmark tests" statement. so there is no way to verify your statement.
assuming your statement is true, Intel funded the tests because they want to publicize Core 2 processor. same thing goes for AMD. AMD funded FX-62's tests when it was launched, because AMD wanted to publicize FX-62's results. comparing both tests, there was no significany difference in FX-62's score. as a result, it can be concluded that Core 2's tests, funded by Intel, was not biased towards any party.
secondly, you accused these third party sites of not following standard benchmarking procedure. if that's the case, may i ask, what is the "standard" benchmarking procedure? wearing white coats, assembling parts in front of both AMD and Intel's official, and running benchmarks in clean rooms? again, you provided no factual data to support this claim.
thirdly, Spec.org is very different from third party sites. On Spec.org, companies submitted their test results, using their own machine, to the website for verification. Spec.org does not have those components for performing these tests, it is basically a software verfication site for those benchmark softwares.
on the other hand, third party sites recieve computer components from various companies. they assemble the computer, benchmark it, then post results online. as a result, Spec.org and third party sites cannot be ccompared. it is like comparing an apple to an orange.
Lastly, Jack earned our respects not by showing off his degree, but by logically and intelligently posting, and backing them up with factual data. same applies to you. as of now, you still have not provided any factual data to back up your statements. degrees won't get you far in this forum, but attitude will.
since you have no provided ANY facts to back up your statement, which is the fundamental practice in the engineering field, I have to say your claim of being a certified IEEE engineer since 1975 is BS. a true engineer knows how to set up an arguement, back it up, and follow it through.
exit2dos
Distinguished
- Jul 16, 2006
- 2,646
- 0
- 20,810
I think your reasoning is moot for the following reasons:
1) You don't state your affiliation/non-affiliation to your preferred benchmarks. Are you affiliated with Spec.org, the University of Minnesota or the Riken Institute? If so, you're point is a "sponsored" one. If not, then wouldn't you claim your affiliation/nonaffiliation to your sources in your doctoral thesis?
2) Your main point is attacking your opponent's sources of information without providing your own. All of Jack's sources provide total disclosure of their testing methods. Do you have a benchmark of these CPUs running on the same operating system, with the same program compiled with the same compiler?
3) You attack your opponents qualifications and methodology without supplying evidence that yours is superior:
4) You provide overly extreme examples to attack credibility:
5) You resort to personal attack. If you really had a case, why would you resort to juvenile tactics? Did you use this method on your doctoral thesis?
6) You have inconsistent self-representation.
7) You are "blowing things out of proportion".
This is a forum post, not a doctoral thesis.
If you are looking to impress others with pomposity or your grandiose demeanor, I suggest you go elsewhere. Right now, "delusions of mediocracy" seems to be above your argumentative level.
While I respect the efforts of SPEC, your logic and refute of evidence implies that you are "trolling" for them. I would ask you to cease, as your discrediting a worthwhile organization.
1) You don't state your affiliation/non-affiliation to your preferred benchmarks. Are you affiliated with Spec.org, the University of Minnesota or the Riken Institute? If so, you're point is a "sponsored" one. If not, then wouldn't you claim your affiliation/nonaffiliation to your sources in your doctoral thesis?
2) Your main point is attacking your opponent's sources of information without providing your own. All of Jack's sources provide total disclosure of their testing methods. Do you have a benchmark of these CPUs running on the same operating system, with the same program compiled with the same compiler?
3) You attack your opponents qualifications and methodology without supplying evidence that yours is superior:
While you only presented your job history. Why did you leave those jobs? Poor performance, fired? I'm not assuming you were, but you provide no evidence that you are qualified to judge your opponent.
4) You provide overly extreme examples to attack credibility:
Little overboard, don't you think? Unless, you were just looking for a religious or persecution example to sway opinion.
5) You resort to personal attack. If you really had a case, why would you resort to juvenile tactics? Did you use this method on your doctoral thesis?
6) You have inconsistent self-representation.
This quote implies that you’re not a PHD, so what gives you the right to question Jack's. Or if you are a PHD, then your quote is admitting you're not a "truly qualified" one.
7) You are "blowing things out of proportion".
This is a forum post, not a doctoral thesis.
If you are looking to impress others with pomposity or your grandiose demeanor, I suggest you go elsewhere. Right now, "delusions of mediocracy" seems to be above your argumentative level.
While I respect the efforts of SPEC, your logic and refute of evidence implies that you are "trolling" for them. I would ask you to cease, as your discrediting a worthwhile organization.
Viperabyss
Distinguished
- Mar 7, 2006
- 573
- 0
- 18,980
ches111
Distinguished
- Feb 4, 2006
- 1,958
- 0
- 19,780
No,
Unfortunately not.... Many IEEE engineers become too big for their Britches...
The certification tends to lead to a Big Head. It is not a bad thing since they tend to get paid well. But it can be annoying (this coming from somone that is NOT IEEE certified).
A Cert is a Cert. I have interviewed MANY Certified folks (Cisco, .net, IEEE, C++, MCSE, and so on...) This is just my interpretation of the folks I have met.
I interviewed one guy who wanted to be my Senior Windows Administrator. He was MCSE certified with the Partnership programs under his belt too. He was clueless... He had not worked in the business AT ALL and wanted to make 65K out of school to be a Windows NT admin. After I finished laughing I told him good day. Just so you know he did not know how to configure a DHCP server that would give unlimited leases.. School did not teach him that
Unfortunately not.... Many IEEE engineers become too big for their Britches...
The certification tends to lead to a Big Head. It is not a bad thing since they tend to get paid well. But it can be annoying (this coming from somone that is NOT IEEE certified).
A Cert is a Cert. I have interviewed MANY Certified folks (Cisco, .net, IEEE, C++, MCSE, and so on...) This is just my interpretation of the folks I have met.
I interviewed one guy who wanted to be my Senior Windows Administrator. He was MCSE certified with the Partnership programs under his belt too. He was clueless... He had not worked in the business AT ALL and wanted to make 65K out of school to be a Windows NT admin. After I finished laughing I told him good day. Just so you know he did not know how to configure a DHCP server that would give unlimited leases.. School did not teach him that
- Jul 3, 2006
- 28
- 0
- 18,530
hmmmmmmm
i'm not born english, i rarely speak it, may be never. becoz i love my mother toung and i think every one should. i'm one of guys here who against using english in dayli life. our country must use our native "sinhala" "tamil" or "muslim" hmm.. but most of govenment stuff do in english.. assholes..
not u, but our gov..
i'm well aware of we still do not have batin implants or inter brain communications..
i'm not born english, i rarely speak it, may be never. becoz i love my mother toung and i think every one should. i'm one of guys here who against using english in dayli life. our country must use our native "sinhala" "tamil" or "muslim" hmm.. but most of govenment stuff do in english.. assholes..
not u, but our gov..
i'm well aware of we still do not have batin implants or inter brain communications..
Action_Man
Splendid
- Jan 7, 2004
- 3,857
- 0
- 22,780
cyborg_ninja-117
Distinguished
- Aug 1, 2006
- 327
- 0
- 18,780
5 bucks can't you swing old Spuddy a deal for say free?
Here you go son.
:tongue:
zomg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! quisnoz mmm toasty bich
clue69less
Splendid
- Mar 2, 2006
- 3,622
- 0
- 22,780
I could walk backwards faster than that little POS!
How can you walk? My tricle was so fast, once you tried chasing it, you broke your legs.
Musta been Doppler shifted!
While you only presented your job history. Why did you leave those jobs? Poor performance, fired? I'm not assuming you were, but you provide no evidence that you are qualified to judge your opponent.
4) You provide overly extreme examples to attack credibility:
Little overboard, don't you think? Unless, you were just looking for a religious or persecution example to sway opinion.
5) You resort to personal attack. If you really had a case, why would you resort to juvenile tactics? Did you use this method on your doctoral thesis?
6) You have inconsistent self-representation.
This quote implies that you’re not a PHD, so what gives you the right to question Jack's. Or if you are a PHD, then your quote is admitting you're not a "truly qualified" one.
7) You are "blowing things out of proportion".
This is a forum post, not a doctoral thesis.
If you are looking to impress others with pomposity or your grandiose demeanor, I suggest you go elsewhere. Right now, "delusions of mediocracy" seems to be above your argumentative level.
While I respect the efforts of SPEC, your logic and refute of evidence implies that you are "trolling" for them. I would ask you to cease, as your discrediting a worthwhile organization.
If you have read all of my posts in this thread(which you obviously didn't) you would know 1. I am retired. 2. my last job was in the Inspector Generals' Office at the Department of Energy. 3. My last job was making sure that materials given to the US Government were accurate and not manipulated in any form or fashion(fraud examiner). 4. Through ANSI/ASTM there are Standards for testing. 5. If you have ever perused the records of the Federal Trade Commision there have been a number of enforcement actions against the electronics and computing industry for the Alan Freed issue AKA payola. Those would result in debarment orders or remedial orders for the company in question to continue as a government contractor. You are terribly naive if you didn't know about the history of Payola in the record industry, the automootive industry, the stereo industrery and yes, the computer industry to name a few. Prior misconduct is what lead to the creation of Spec. to provide trustworthy testing. The only company that I would trust right now to not puff their data is IBM and they have a very long history of infractions and prosection by the Justice Department. When Mr Gerstner was chairman a house cleaning came about and IBM is now meticulous about compliance. My question to you is why would someone not use the recognised standards of SPEC unless there is something questionable.
"The System Performance Evaluation Cooperative, now named the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC), was founded in 1988 by a small number of workstation vendors who realized that the marketplace was in desperate need of realistic, standardized performance tests. The key realization was that an ounce of honest data was worth more than a pound of marketing hype.
'The goal of SPEC is to ensure that the marketplace has a fair and useful set of metrics to differentiate candidate systems.
"The basic SPEC methodology is to provide the benchmarker with a standardized suite of source code based upon existing applications that has already been ported to a wide variety of platforms by its membership. The benchmarker then takes this source code, compiles it for the system in question and then can tune the system for the best results. The use of already accepted and ported source code greatly reduces the problem of making apples-to-oranges comparisons."
http://www.spec.org/spec
You don't get to make your own rules in testing to achieve the results you want if you are honest,
Action_Man
Splendid
- Jan 7, 2004
- 3,857
- 0
- 22,780
Action_Man
Splendid
- Jan 7, 2004
- 3,857
- 0
- 22,780
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News Apple debuts M4 processor in new iPad Pros with 38 TOPS on neural engine- Started by Admin
- Replies: 76
-
News Firefox user loses 7,470 opened tabs saved over two years after they can’t restore browsing session
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 58
-
News Intel issues official statement on Core K-series crashes: stick to Intel's official power profiles
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 28
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram