First REAL Barcelona Benchmarks

[turpit]

After the hubbub about Jack and the others, I stopped posting for awhile. I used to post AMD news everyday. I HAVE NEVER SAID Core 2s benchmarks were fake. That's what Jack did to make me look bad post things that he couldn't prove about me.

That's why I slowed. It's not worth it. Neither are you. Make up some more stuff.

Once again Baron, you should be careful, very, very, very careful about your memory and what you say, because, again, there are people who remember what you have really said, and, in this particular case, people who actually know the truth about why you stopped posting. People who know that it had nothing to do with you 'stoping' posting voluntarily (as you have insinuated) because of "the hubbub about jack".

In fact, Baron, I think you should actually tell everyone the truth about why you "stopped posting".

 

[bigwater]

My guess is bannage or warning.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Once again Baron, you should be careful, very, very, very careful about your memory and what you say, because, again, there are people who remember what you have really said, and, in this particular case, people who actually know the truth about why you stopped posting. People who know that it had nothing to do with you 'stoping' posting voluntarily (as you have insinuated) because of "the hubbub about jack".

In fact, Baron, I think you should actually tell everyone the truth about why you "stopped posting".

Because you all make me sick. I have never doubted any benchmarks. Someone posted about an "anti-trust" statement which has nothing to do with benchmarks.


That doesn't seem like trying to make me look bad?

 

[shadowmaster625]

If Intel charged $1000 for an E6550, everybody would buy x2's and the other way around.

I do not believe this is a true statement. MORE might buy the amd, but MANY would still buy the intel! I cant say for sure how many would buy each, but I'm guessing with a price differential of $800, about 80% would buy the amd. Which leaves 20% paying $800 more for the intel, at least until it starts to eat away at Intel's name recognition/respect/whatever you call it.

 

[turpit]

I'd like to see you find that. No wonder I only sporadically post. It's the same old same old.

You only "sporadically post"?????? Shall I go back and find the post in which you claim you 'are one of the most prolific posters on THG' or are you going to deny that too? So which is it? You are a "prolific" poster, or you only post "sporadically"?

Memory can be a dangerous thing. You may not remember that which you posted, but other people do.

After the hubbub about Jack and the others, I stopped posting for awhile. I used to post AMD news everyday. I HAVE NEVER SAID Core 2s benchmarks were fake. That's what Jack did to make me look bad post things that he couldn't prove about me.

That's why I slowed. It's not worth it. Neither are you. Make up some more stuff.

Once again Baron, you should be careful, very, very, very careful about your memory and what you say, because, again, there are people who remember what you have really said, and, in this particular case, people who actually know the truth about why you stopped posting. People who know that it had nothing to do with you 'stoping' posting voluntarily (as you have insinuated) because of "the hubbub about jack".

In fact, Baron, I think you should actually tell everyone the truth about why you "stopped posting".

Because you all make me sick. I have never doubted any benchmarks. Someone posted about an "anti-trust" statement which has nothing to do with benchmarks.


That doesn't seem like trying to make me look bad?

Nooooooo........we obviously need to go back to basics. Parrot started this thread, titled "First REAL Barcelona Benchmarks", about an update of the now infamous AMD 'compartive performance' marketing slide, which in fact wansnt about "REAL" benchmarks at all, but once again, estimated benchmarks of a simulated chip, and thats completely discounting the fact that they were AMDs own marketing machinations, and not third party numbers.

You then posted a link to a video of an AMD marketing division employee (who, if anyone watched, was clearly completely and totaly clueless about computers other than what she needed to know to sell them) which you labled "Here are the real benchmarks."


Now to address the issues.
First: If we "all make you sick", then why do you bother posting here?
Second: Above is the sum of our exchange, not including your benchmarks post and my reply to that, as they have no bearing on the exchange in its current form. There has been no mention of an "anti-trust" statement in the exchange between you and I. Please do not use that as an attempt to divert the conversation, as it does not even remotely apply.
Third: No one can make anyone else "look bad". I can no more make you "look bad" than you can make me "look bad". Only the individual can make themselves "look bad". Only I can make myself "look bad", and only you can make yourself "look bad". Frankly, even if you could make me "look bad" I certainly dont need your help as I do spectacularly well making my myself "look bad". How do you make yourself look Barron?
Fourth: You still have not actaully answered a single question, but as is the norm, employed tangetial seques to divert the topics thus avoiding actually addressing the questions with specific answers. So I will put them to you again:

"No wonder I only sporadically post" or ''are one of the most prolific posters on THG'
Which is it, prolific or sporadic?

"After the hubbub about Jack and the others, I stopped posting for awhile. I used to post AMD news everyday."

You stopped posting, as in you voluntarily chose to no longer post, or "slowed" as you have put it, or was it something else?

Again, Baron, I think you should actually tell everyone the truth about why you "stopped posting".

 

[bixplus]

Again, Baron, I think you should actually tell everyone the truth about why you "stopped posting".

Ok, now you've got me really curious.

Come on Baron...tell us?

 

[JonathanDeane]

Ok, now you've got me really curious.

Come on Baron...tell us?

I too am wondering if Turpit says there is something more... lol Not that I am on the hate Baron bandwagon. (im too lazy to hate anyone lol)

 

[NMDante]

You stopped posting, as in you voluntarily chose to no longer post, or "slowed" as you have put it, or was it something else?

Again, Baron, I think you should actually tell everyone the truth about why you "stopped posting".

While, I am a bit curious, I really don't need to know what BM's reasons are for his posting habits.

 

[jwlangs]

Alright, alright. Just to keep more to the topic (sort of), Fuad is suggesting a soft launch of Phenom with the hard launch of Barcelona on the 10th of September.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2381&Itemid=1

If this is true, and if this is the official launch of Phenom (even though no product availability until November), is it safe to assume benchmarks of BOTH Barcy and Budapest after this date?

 

[turpit]

Alright, alright. Just to keep more to the topic (sort of), Fuad is suggesting a soft launch of Phenom with the hard launch of Barcelona on the 10th of September.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2381&Itemid=1

If this is true, and if this is the official launch of Phenom (even though no product availability until November), is it safe to assume benchmarks of BOTH Barcy and Budapest after this date?

Sadly, its not even remotely safe to assume any such thing. Since the introduction of C2D last year, AMD has taken to soft launching its hard launches....meaning while K10 is set to "hard launch" this month, we may not actually see any hitting the market or the OEMs this month. We certainly will see the AMD three ring media circus in full effect, with much accompanying fanfair and bruhaha, but we can only hope that we might actually see the products hitting the market. Given the way AMD has been launching products recently, this months "launch" may just be a "launch" of the box that the K10s are going to be delivered to the OEMs in....someday. Maybe.

As for Phenom soft launching, gotta laugh at that one. AMD marketing has gotton so slimy, they actually had a "launch" for the friggin Phenom logo a few months ago at the canadian F1.

 

[function9]

I hear they will be postponing all k10 shipments so they can include an NDA form in all cpu boxes as to keep customers from releasing any kind of useful data or benchmarking.

 

[NMDante]

I hear they will be postponing all k10 shipments so they can include an NDA form in all cpu boxes as to keep customers from releasing any kind of useful data or benchmarking.

That would be pretty unique, if they could enforce an NDA of any form after selling a CPU (boxed or OEM) to keep customers from releasing any information.

They would have to be able to ensure (and enforce) any person from publicly releasing anything after selling the CPU. How exactly would they do that? An NDA is only viable for people who are willing to accept the terms of the NDA. Most customers aren't apt to accept terms on items they buy for their business or themselves.

It's almost like trying to put an NDA on a video game, claiming that the person buying it cannot describe the gameplay, once the game is bought. It's damn near impossible.

If this rumor has any truth to it, how many units do they expect to sell?

 

[croc]

That would be pretty unique, if they could enforce an NDA of any form after selling a CPU (boxed or OEM) to keep customers from releasing any information.

They would have to be able to ensure (and enforce) any person from publicly releasing anything after selling the CPU. How exactly would they do that? An NDA is only viable for people who are willing to accept the terms of the NDA. Most customers aren't apt to accept terms on items they buy for their business or themselves.

It's almost like trying to put an NDA on a video game, claiming that the person buying it cannot describe the gameplay, once the game is bought. It's damn near impossible.

If this rumor has any truth to it, how many units do they expect to sell?

Kind of like the M$ eula... Interesting concept though. (by opening the shrinkwrap on this box you agree to whatever we say you wil agree to, and we can change the agreement whenever we want.)

 

[NMDante]

Kind of like the M$ eula... Interesting concept though. (by opening the shrinkwrap on this box you agree to whatever we say you wil agree to, and we can change the agreement whenever we want.)

While I agree with you that MS's EULA would be similar, I doubt AMD could prevent the public release of benchmarks or performance numbers with that sort of agreement. In order to do that, they would have to be able to go and retrieve the products purchased, and that would be near suicide. To even claim that an NDA would be attached to a CPU purchase could mean the CPU won't live up to the performance claims. That is something AMD cannot afford at this particular time.

While an EULA can be changed via software updates, it too would be near impossible to stop a single entity from airing out certain aspects of the software (be it good or bad). Same thing with an NDA for a CPU purchase. Unless AMD is willing to accept the press about recalling CPUs due to a leaked NDA, it would damn near impossible to enforce an NDA when a substantial amount of CPUs are sold and in the publics' hands.

 

[croc]

While I agree with you that MS's EULA would be similar, I doubt AMD could prevent the public release of benchmarks or performance numbers with that sort of agreement. In order to do that, they would have to be able to go and retrieve the products purchased, and that would be near suicide. To even claim that an NDA would be attached to a CPU purchase could mean the CPU won't live up to the performance claims. That is something AMD cannot afford at this particular time.

While an EULA can be changed via software updates, it too would be near impossible to stop a single entity from airing out certain aspects of the software (be it good or bad). Same thing with an NDA for a CPU purchase. Unless AMD is willing to accept the press about recalling CPUs due to a leaked NDA, it would damn near impossible to enforce an NDA when a substantial amount of CPUs are sold and in the publics' hands.

Sarcasm, NM, sarcasm.... Sheesh....

 

[function9]

Sarcasm, NM, sarcasm.... Sheesh....

Crap, yeah I forgot to add a smiley in there. No points for me! 🙁

Though...

To even claim that an NDA would be attached to a CPU purchase could mean the CPU won't live up to the performance claims. That is something AMD cannot afford at this particular time.

Would you say that this is exactly what AMD is doing at this point? I mean the few people that have had Barcelona demonstrated for them have to know some specifics, but no one is talking. I'm not buying the whole "we don't want to show the evil Intel our hand too early" story. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't remember AMD being this hush hush about k8's launch back in the day. Seems they knew they had something special back then, maybe not so much now.

 

[NMDante]

Sarcasm, NM, sarcasm.... Sheesh....

My apologies. I had just come back from a night of, well, drinking, and wasn't really into sarcasm at the moment. I was interested in your idea of using an EULA type disclaimer, though.

Crap, yeah I forgot to add a smiley in there. No points for me! 🙁

Though...

To even claim that an NDA would be attached to a CPU purchase could mean the CPU won't live up to the performance claims. That is something AMD cannot afford at this particular time.

Would you say that this is exactly what AMD is doing at this point? I mean the few people that have had Barcelona demonstrated for them have to know some specifics, but no one is talking. I'm not buying the whole "we don't want to show the evil Intel our hand too early" story. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't remember AMD being this hush hush about k8's launch back in the day. Seems they knew they had something special back then, maybe not so much now.

AMD is being tight lipped about its upcoming CPU for their own reasons. The problem is that they are being tight lipped almost to launch, and that is different. Usually the performance numbers start coming in from 3rd parties to get more interest generated in a new product. All we have to go by are estimated performance numbers and static demos.

AMD was quiet about K8, but they didn't have to worry much about the Netburst architecture back then, and they knew that. But with less than a month from launch, there is still no real hard 3rd party performance numbers from any of the traditional review sites. That is strange.

 

[ches111]

NM,

The curious question may be this:

Do the Hardware sites have the Engineering Samples and are not allowed to disclose anything (including having them) because a FULL NDA?

OR

Di they not have them at all which would worry me even more?

 

[NMDante]

NM,

The curious question may be this:

Do the Hardware sites have the Engineering Samples and are not allowed to disclose anything (including having them) because a FULL NDA?

OR

Di they not have them at all which would worry me even more?

That's a good question.
I'm sure they are under NDA, but usually the NDA is lifted the closer it is to launch date. There is no real time table for lifting an NDA, it could be 2-3 months before launch or it could be 2 hrs before launch, but the way AMD is pushing it's next generation of CPUs with all the powerpoint slides, you'd figure they would've lifted any NDAs by now.

I do believe they did send out ES chips, but maybe those chips are the same ones seen at Computex (around 1.6GHz-1.8GHz), and they didn't want any performance information released for those clock speeds. Only AMD and those who are under NDA really know. So, maybe the NDA does not end until end of Sept. for those with ES Barcelona Opteron CPUs, and even longer for ES Phenom CPUs. I've been under an NDA once, and it lasted a few days (which amounted to me having no substantial data gathered), but the wording in that NDA was pretty clear.

The bigger question is why the delay of independent benchmark/performance numbers if all those powerpoint slides show such a great product? Wouldn't AMD want confirmation of how good their product is? If for nothing more than to use that data to help push their product to potential customers? Wouldn't it be better to say - "These hardware sites shows our product being xx-xx% better at these applications", than saying "Our estimated/simulated CPU performance shows gains of xx% in these applications"?

 

[wolverinero79]

ches, at the very least, the customers (HP, Dell, etc.) have ES samples as well as mobo manufacturers (most AMD chipsets are not made by AMD/ATI), since the mobos need to launch with the chips so you can actually use your chip. Absolutely full NDA there though as any information leaked from that could be used against AMD.

Whether hardware sites (like anand...Tom's doesn't really count as a hardware review site anymore) have them or not is a mystery. I would guess probably, but who knows.

 

[ches111]

Wolvie,

I understand the OEMs MUST have them already but usually even this leads to SOME leaks. This time so far NOTHING.

The Hardware sites I think would not have them either because there is very little even speculative info on these.

It is like AMD hired the Chinese government to search and destroy anything Barcey related ..

It is just strange the quietness of the net in general on this release.

No leaks what so ever.

 

[wolverinero79]

I agree - a little too quiet. It's probably either because the product is fantastic and they're trying to build hype, or it's mediocre and they're trying to improve steppings to get it to a decent product. I hope and believe it's the first one, but you never know...

 

[spongebob]

But how can they build hype withoug hyping up their product? If that's what they're trying to do I'd have to say they're going about it wrong, as I have no sense of hype regarding their products - just questions and a sense of bewilderment.

 

[dobby]

if i see this on 5 independent sites with a good reputation
then i will trust it

just too much BS around on the web these days...

i second this. and with high performance claculation processor wattage isnt as important as results ie speed.

 

[wolverinero79]

But how can they build hype withoug hyping up their product? If that's what they're trying to do I'd have to say they're going about it wrong, as I have no sense of hype regarding their products - just questions and a sense of bewilderment.

Well, as an example, the start of this thread has "data" that would cause some hype. AMD bigwigs keep saying how revolutionary the chip will be (not sure if they're trying to convince investors or consumers, but oh well). It's sort of like "We have a product you'll love; it will knock your socks off, but we're not going to spoil the surprise". Ya, not a good tactic when losing more than 500 million dollars a quarter in cash, but that's the route they hopefully have taken (may have been necessary just to avoid giving info to the Penryn team at Intel - Intel's faced with the decision of launching Penryn immediately after Barcy, or seeing how the benches go and then being forced to hold off until later Penyrn steppings). Because if this scenario is not the case, AMD's in serious trouble.