Your pushing an agenda, you've been pushing an agenda for awhile now. I called you on it and you attempted to defend your agenda. I dug into the details and findings of the FTC to back why your agenda was wrong.
This is relevant to the thread because people are publishing game benchmarks, amongst others, as indications of this processor performances an ect. Someone brought up the size of the two companies involved and that anyone Intel is providing a SDK for would be using the Intel compiler and thus their benchmarks would by default be biased. This is where you inserted your agenda and attempted to convince others that it's perfectly find for Intel to participate in unethical and anti-competitive practices. All you had to do was say, ok Intel did bad stuff, and move on. But no you wanted to justify your agenda just like previous with your ridiculous ADP statements.
And as such, there is no such thing as "games optimized for X / Y / Z platform". GNU GCC will produce unbiased code, as will the MS Compiler. The only thing you must watch out for is if Intel libraries were used during the compilation, any code executed from those libraries will be biased. The issue your ignored, and I left out to demonstrate that you didn't do your homework, is that the Intel Compiler produces the fastest code for the x86 Windows platform. This is why most games and (contrary to your uninformed statement) use the Intel compiler or used the Intel libraries for various functions. The guys making the third party game engine want to sell their product as the fastest possible and thus purchase the Intel Compiler, and thus any game utilizing their game engine would be hamstrung (only SSE2, no SSE3/4/AVX) on and AMD CPU even if AMD implemented the instruction set perfectly.
First off, I was never pushing an agenda. I just stated there is nothing wrong with companies helping optimize the best performance out of certain hardware. Intel, AMD and nVidia all do it, its a perfectly normal practice. Hell AMD had a dual-core optimizer for the Athlon 64 X2s which helped Windows utilize the extra performance out of their dual cores. Pushing an agenda would mean I think EVERYONE should feel the same as I do, I do not think that. People can think whatever they want. They can think the X360 is the best gaming system in the world, thats great but I do not (I think the PC always has been and always will be).
Second, you can keep saying there is no such thing but there is a reason why some programs/games run better on some hardware in a case where the hardware is equal. VALVe optimized Source to run on multiple cores very well, a quad core can almost double performance over a dual core in TF2/L4D/L4D2/Portal 2 all which utilize the multicore rendering version of Source.
Thats what I was saying then you brought up the compiler, I have nothing against Intel for it as it was minimally used compared to other compilers. If you don't like that, too bad its how I feel. I still don't see why Intel should even guarantee anything beyond their own CPUs with their compiler as they have no control over it at all.
The original discussion had nothing to do with the compiler just about optimizations for games, which do exist or we also wouldn't see performance enhancements out of driver updates for certain GPUs only sometimes.
Still I am over it, need to move forward not stay in the past.
And now for the why of it all. Why should you the consumer, us the enthusiast care if Intel is participating in unethical and anti-competitive behavior? Because it detracts from a fair market and impairs product development. Free markets operate under the concept of each competitor producing the best product and you the consumer choosing the one that fits your needs. The competitor that makes the best product thus gets the most business. This rewards making a superior product and offering it at low prices.
Now making these superior product's isn't cheap. Many businessmen lament the lower margins from having to actually develop those better products and selling them for cheap. It's far cheaper to tarnish your competitors reputation and convince consumers that their product is worse then yours through manipulation then actually producing a better product. If this is allowed to happen then the consumer is only provided misleading options, prices remain high and you get stagnant development.
SB is as good as it is because Intel ~had~ to create a better CPU, they were forced to compete in a fair an open market vs using exclusive OEM deals to cut their competition out of the market. They couldn't lie to independent (supposedly) reviewers about their products. SB (actually Core) was created as a result of the FTC findings and the Anti-Trust investigations against Intel. As long as there is pressure on Intel to be fair and open, then the customer will be presented with the best products possible.
Thats all good and well but I want to know how you, a consumer, knows the exact reason behind Core. You seem to have some sort of inside knowledge to a lot of things well out of your reach. I think Intel developed core because NetBurst was bust and being smacked down by K8. It seems to be very reasonable to assume that since Intel and AMD have always traded blows before then, and even during NetBurst it still had some advantages such as in some encoding apps it faired better but overall it was a inferior arch in many ways (power, heat, IPC etc). Considering that Intel starts work on new technology many years in advance, how would you know for 100% sure that Core (released in 2006) was due to the FTC.
Lets look at the time table. Pentium M, the first CPU drived from the idea behind Core and a very good mobile CPU, was released in 2003. That means that the original idea probably started in 2001 or 2002. The first lawsuit from AMD started in 2005:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060624004033/http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050901corp.htm
So to make a claim that Core was derived because of this when Core was being discussed and developed by Intel in 2004-2005 is pretty big. You sure Intel
only developed Core because of this or was it truly because NetBurst sucked and Intel wanted to have a better overall arch than AMD?
Since Core, Intel has consitently delivered a better product, performance wise, at an affordable price without any major competition from AMD. It could have been due to the "FTC" findings or it could have been due to Intel not wanting to slip up again and have a worse product. But since you still know better than everyone else, tells us how and why you know it without any insider sources.
I think a better source would be sonoran, who works for Intel.
I honestly don't think what Intels original idea behind the OEMs was that bad of an idea. Having exclusive contracts is not wrong, many companies do it (fast food places do it often to get better deals as do other major companies). Its normal. If they paid them to keep AMD out, sure its bad. If it was a contract to deliver this many parts at XX price for XX years, Intel would be held to their end of the agreement no matter the costs above that said price as that is the purpose of a contract.
Still as I have said before, AMD has gotten over it as should we. So far Intel has been doing the right thing and AMD has too, to our knowledge. We can move on and hope for a better future. AMD has the potential to take Intel on again, just not sure their new CEO/team wants to for some reason. Look what they did to nVidia with the HD7K series. Really put them in their place.
And e65imfg, Piledriver is the next CPU, Trinity is the next APU. Trinity is to give very good GPU improvements and supposed to give decent CPU but I think CPU will be based more on clock speed improvements, not IPC itself. Piledriver, not sure. No real info on performance or release for either has come up. Kinda urks me because I want to know so we can plan our new AMD systems around it. We can't get anymore Phenom IIs or Athlon IIs (well only the X2 270 or a Sempron 140) from our distributors so we only have a few BD CPUs for our AMD builds while we have a nice range for our Intel builds (Pentium G to Core i7) Makes it hard to plan what mobos to use and such.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram