the tuth comes out

wapaaga

Distinguished
Jan 18, 2001
1,070
0
19,280
0
i just read the artical in the tech news today
final the truth seems to come out on how intel makes there stuff look better than it is
 

AmdMELTDOWN

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,000
0
19,780
0
yeah, I read that too, and I must say I was disappointed.
But,...then I read it again and it just doesn't seem to fit(it'll make perfect sense to an AMD puppy) like where's the evidence? where are the numbers? show me how Intel is doing this.

If someone proves it to me today then I'll buy a Athlon system tomorrow(fat chance, hehe).


- Amd Helpdesk -
 

mpjesse

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
7,214
0
25,810
6
How about a link to that article? Another thing, doesn't everyone do that? You know- beef up their product with marketting hype and BS. Hell, even AMD does that- at least they used to w/ the K6-2.

-MP Jesse
 
G

Guest

Guest
I wouldn't be surprised they did that. Since they're getting some hard competition from AMD now, a company like Intel probably would resort to extreme measures like these. They had a factory in my country since the 1970's I think and they closed it down this month, supposedly one of the factors being the strong market competition.

Here's the article URL:
http://www.eetimes.com/story/industry/semiconductor_news/OEG20010126S0020
 

kal326

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,096
0
19,290
1
Your right it doesnt seem to fit. The benchmark was designed for win2k as the article says. However they do not state in which os the findings posted came from. Not to mention that a good benchmark shouldnt be optimized for one os just as it shouldnt be optimized for a chip. Businesses use NT4 and Win2k. Home users use win98, WinME, Linux, NT4, and Win2k. Not to mention that all of these os are made for a 4 step latancy, not a seven step latancy like the P4. Right there the P4 is at a disadvantage because the benchmark runs in these oses. For a true real world preformance test with any bench mark with any os the core timings of the cpu have to be supported. Not to mention the guy that wrote this benchmark seperated from intel in a not to friendly manner. I believe that the article says he lost upwards of half a mill of Intels business. You dont think this guy could be in anyway bitter. Also, being this guy was hired to by intel to write benchmark software, you dont think its possible that he has enough knowledge of intel chips to make them look horrible in benchmarks? Lets think here, I you were just fired from a company and lost a good sum of business from them would you be impartial in evaluating their products? I agree that there needs to be a new way of evaluating platforms, but putting blind faith in benchmark software from somebody that was just fired from a intel is ludicrous. Once Intel, AMD, VIA, and anybody else that wants too tears this benchmark apart line by line and all parties agree that no one is being played favorites and everyone is on a truely level playing field then I believe the results of said benchmark program. Until then its all hype and partisan crap!
 
G

Guest

Guest
You're wrong in one respect...

His findings are probably not as biased as you think.

For example, he actually shows that Pentium 4 performs clearly better than Pentium III 1 GHz, something other benchmarks don't show. This part is definitely going to give Intel some advantage. Some people are still only willing to buy from Intel.

I'm somewhat disappointed, however, that the news summary from Tom's Hardware makes no mention of that. It seems to hint a slight pro-AMD bias on the part of Tom's Hardware staff.

I still trust Tom's Hardware for the most part, however, since they're willing to change their stance on Rambus memory performance immediately after Pentium 4 tests show some of its advantage. (Nevertheless, I'm somewhat disgusted by Rambus.)

Besides, he breaks up w/ Intel for criticizing Pentium 4...I think Intel wants another pro-Intel benchmark when the guy first comes up with the idea of a new one.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Hmm...oops...the last paragraph should come before the fourth paragraph. :(
 
G

Guest

Guest
YOU READING THIS AMD!!!!!!

Dosent suprise me, where do you think the 486dx's came from way back when?, They were 486sx's that failed the math co pro test, so the co pro's were disabled and foisted off on an unsuspecting public.
Cant remember if it was that way or the other way around
 

slvr_phoenix

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
6,223
0
25,780
0
The whole benchmarking system is a major joke though.

Don't get me wrong: Benchmarks are important ... when they provide useful information.

However, this benchmark is to provide information on running several programs at the same time. So OF COURSE a multiple-processor setup is going to out perform a single processor setup when the combined MHz ratings are close to each other. That's just plain common sense. So right there you have to wonder about the bias of the writer of the article already to talk as though everyone should think otherwise.

But then we find the true confusing aspects of things. Quoted directly from the article, "The point of the software is to test performance on real-world application sets". Real world, eh?

To take another quote directly from the article, "Kennedy demonstrated the software benchmarking a desktop while running canned video on three simultaneous Windows Media Player windows and some background Microsoft Office applications."

Now who in the REAL WORLD watches THREE videos simultaniously AND works on some MS Office files at the SAME TIME? I'm sorry, but that hardly sounds anything like "real-world application sets".

I know that when I use MY computer, I usually only do one thing at a time. I play a game. I watch a movie. Sometimes on rare occasion while writing C++ code, surfing the internet, or writing a novel, I will actually run WinAmp as well. Usually though I just turn on the radio or pop a CD into my stereo. But it is rare indeed that I EVER run even two processor-intensive applications simultaniously. In fact, I even stop WinAmp when I go to compile. So I can't remember a time when I have EVER run two processor-intensive applications simultaniously. And I certainly NEVER watch three movies at the same time.

So forgive me if I fail to see the shining wisdom of basing any computer purchases on that article or the related benchmarking software. It claims to be all important because it shows how well a processor runs "real-world application sets". But does ANYONE actually run anything even closely similar to what they claim to be a "real-world application set"?

If I want to buy a system to be used as a heavily-accessed server, I'll consider looking at their benchmark scores. But since I work with your standard desktop PCs, all I really need to know is how well my computer runs one application at a time.

So I think that for the majority of computer users that entire article and benchmarking software is completely pointless. And the author of that article is clearly biased. So believing that all of their 'claims' that Intel has falsified benchmark results is just simply hard to swallow given how much the author is already stretching the truth if not flat out misguiding people.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
 

tfbww

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2001
211
0
18,680
0
It was the other way around, the sx's didn't have the co-pro.

Come on, though, who cares? Benchmarks are pointless marketing hype, alway have been and always will be. Has anyone really thought they were accurate measures of system performance? Isn't that precisely why we look at Tom's reviews instead of ZDNet's? Because he actually looks at more real world apps, not blindly following the Winstones et.al.?

The masses may get duped but only if they are stupid enough to shell out over 2k after listening to basic marketing hype while stumbling through your nearest Computers-R-Us. If they are only spending <1k, they should instinctively know they are getting what they pay for and they will be fine. A little research goes a LONG way.
 

Sojourn

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
131
0
18,680
0
The benchmarking suite is only in beta right now, which is why no hard numbers have been released. He also points out in this article, or a related article, that he was hired to write a benchmark suite that would make the P4 look good. When he posted some articles on his website pointing out some interesting performance observations, he was canned. Yes, this may lead to bias, but I think we're all aware that the current benchmarking suites are heavily Intel funded, which makes them biased as well.

While some people may not do much multitasking, myself and most of my co-workers do. I always have several browsers open, a DOS prompt, my email client, pcAnywhere logged in to several machines, 2 FoxPro sessions, one for programming one for processing, ICQ, mIRC, and WinAmp. At home I'll probably have browsers, email, mIRC, ICQ, Money, Word, and a game of Minesweeper running. You SHOULD get very different results when benchmarking performance under these circumstances than loading these applications up one at a time. This isn't meant to replace current benchmarks, it should simply add another way to analyse performance, and give us end users another tool in our decision making suite.
 
G

Guest

Guest
It's not a total joke.

The benchmark actually lets you customize the list of applications that you're going to test. This person, however, has made some unrealistic situation.

Still, people do multitask. Right now I have 3 IE Windows, ICQ, AIM, ZoneAlarm, and Norton Anti-Virus running. Sometimes I would also watch Video and leave a lot of the other programs on (too lazy to close them).
 
G

Guest

Guest
You Know.... The REALLY funny thing is that if I placed a PIII system infront of one of the obvious AMD fans posting on this site, BUT LIED and said it was a T-bird (or an AMD system in front of a PIII fan...but lied and said it was a PIII), the fact is that they would be clueless about the fact. CLUELESS.

As long as the build was done right, the system and all drivers installed properly, NOONE WOULD KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.

The PIII monger would coo.. "This Intel system is awesome.." and the AMD pusher would praise, "OOOh, if Intel could only do this !"

Can ANYONE tell me tuthfully that without spotting the procesor post or running a particularly obvious bench mark test, that they would be able to tell the difference ???

Stability is the real world... PERIOD.
 

SoulReaper

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
194
0
18,680
0
But hey what can we look forward to. Every mistake Intel makes....Every P.O.S product they release, AMD gains a larger foothold on the market, driving down prices, and giving us better products. So let intel mess up and lie and cheat as much as they want, it's only going to help the market in the end.

--SR
 

tfbww

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2001
211
0
18,680
0
Well, the replies would most likely be "Your 3dbenchmark is low but not ridiculously low. Try downloading all the most recent drivers and BIOS, check your memory settings, etc." :) Athlon's outperform the P3's. Pretty much every test THG has run has borne out this fact. If you were to say it was an Athlon, people would think something was a) misconfigured or b) built by Compaq.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by tfbww on 01/30/01 09:29 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

LordKaos

Distinguished
Jan 25, 2001
2,017
0
19,780
0
Only a hint???

You should look in to the past week´s articles to see if it is only a hint!

-

"I´m Going Down!...Down!Down!Down!Down!Down!" - Joe Satriani in G3 Live
 
G

Guest

Guest
you are right , without some visual indication you wouldn't know, the fact of the matter is I wouldn't care either. I have no reason to suck up to AMD or Intel and the more people who realise this the more and better the CPU market will become, competition is good guys , play them off against each other, and whoever makes the best CPU for you at the time you want ot buy , take it , but on it's own merits not it's badge.....

M

one of the first UK T-Bird users....
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS