[citation][nom]silverblue[/nom]The thing is, I'm curious about the timing. Bulldozer does indeed have the broadest support for extensions out of any AMD and Intel CPU and would indeed sufficiently outperform previous AMD offerings. Is this anything like the compiler furore we had over the past years where all CPUs are equal but some are more equal than others...?I'm afraid I know very little on this subject so I'd like to know which tests performed particularly badly on AMD hardware. I do believe, however, that - going back to the subject of compilers - Intel were ordered to remove the code that purposefully hijacks performance on non-Intel CPUs.[/citation]
AMD is whining because their new products emphasize a new type of processing that these benchmarks, in their opinion, do not adequate use.
You'll get the fools here crying about Intel rigging the game, because they are poor and can't afford Intel and want to cry "conspiracy". The reality is probably very different, although AMD does have something of a point.
Intel had destroyed AMD in performance based on "conventional" workloads. BAPco reflects that. Bulldozer is not going to change anything there. AMD changed the way their processors work, by including two integer units, and emphasizing the GPU in processing. They need benchmarks to use software that will emphasize these advantages, or they will keep losing miserably.
Put another way, if you're using apps that don't use the extra integer unit on the Bulldozer, or the GPU, AMD processors are going to continue to be embarrassed for a long, long time. AMD needs a shift to take advantage of their newest, non-traditional resources, and BAPco obviously was not willing to do it.
You can't blame AMD for wanting this, except BD is not even out, and their Fusion is just out. My guess is that BAPco didn't show any desire to move their in the near future either, leaving AMD the choice of looking lousy in a benchmark they are part of, or having them look lousy in a benchmark they aren't part of.