Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

"AMD, Nvidia Beat Business PC Drum"

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 12, 2006 1:15:49 AM

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32955
Quote:
NVIDIA AND AMD released the results of an independent study which they claim show the stability of business systems in a good light against Intel stable image systems.
The firms used Veritest to conduct stability testing and benchmarks showing how the AMD stable image platform programme machines fared.

The results, said Veritest, showed both Nvidia and Intel chipsets passed a 15-day burn in process.

But Veritest claimed some Intel chipset machines failed to run real world benchmarks after more than 50 retries.


So, after all Intel doesn't seem to be as "reliabale" as many have thought. 8)
July 12, 2006 1:21:00 AM

AMD discovered a flaw in intel systems? stop the presses.
July 12, 2006 1:22:03 AM

Well that definitely proves Intel unworthy to exist. :roll:

Word!
Related resources
July 12, 2006 1:28:30 AM

Quote:
Well that definitely proves Intel unworthy to exist. :roll:

Word!



No, but it does prove AMD WORTHY to COMPETE in the CPU market.

I told you ALL AMD and nVidia would push this platform with success. This is just the first of many. Dell will probably DEMAND it.
July 12, 2006 1:34:03 AM

You are aware that they tested 2 AMD systems against 7 Intel systems right? Out of the 7 Intel systems, only 1 system from MPC would only run stably for 24 hours. The other 6 Intel systems ran the full 15-day burn-in test just like AMD. The only other complication was the already mentioned MPC system and 1 from Elonex refused to run a single application in their test suite. The results aren't quite as black and white as The Inquirer makes it sound. I'm sure a more realistic test would have included more systems from Intel and particularly from AMD in order to truly guage the effectiveness of their Stable Image programs.

This AMD/nVidia partnership is also another example of how an AMD/ATI partnership doesn't seem to have the necessary base relationship to build on.

Edit: Aww, I see JumpingJack already mentioned this. Anyways.
July 12, 2006 1:38:20 AM

Quote:
No, but it does prove AMD WORTHY to COMPETE in the CPU market.

I told you ALL AMD and nVidia would push this platform with success. This is just the first of many. Dell will probably DEMAND it.


I think AMD's already proven they're more than worthy.

this results of this test are obviously presented in a very biased manner though, which makes the whole thing pointless imo.
July 12, 2006 1:43:30 AM

Quote:
No, but it does prove AMD WORTHY to COMPETE in the CPU market.

I told you ALL AMD and nVidia would push this platform with success. This is just the first of many. Dell will probably DEMAND it.


I think AMD's already proven they're more than worthy.

this results of this test are obviously presented in a very biased manner though, which makes the whole thing pointless imo.

Sounds familiar to me. The point of it was not to report that Intel failed but that AMD has been through VeriTest for business "images." I haven't read it but I was expecting this.
July 12, 2006 1:54:01 AM

Quote:
You are aware that they tested 2 AMD systems against 7 Intel systems right? Out of the 7 Intel systems, only 1 system from MPC would only run stably for 24 hours. The other 6 Intel systems ran the full 15-day burn-in test just like AMD. The only other complication was the already mentioned MPC system and 1 from Elonex refused to run a single application in their test suite. The results aren't quite as black and white as The Inquirer makes it sound. I'm sure a more realistic test would have included more systems from Intel and particularly from AMD in order to truly guage the effectiveness of their Stable Image programs.

This AMD/nVidia partnership is also another example of how an AMD/ATI partnership doesn't seem to have the necessary base relationship to build on.

Edit: Aww, I see JumpingJack already mentioned this. Anyways.



HOLY SHIT Anand maybe biased. His exact text was

Quote:
According to AMD’s skewed press release an Intel based system failed the 15-day burn-in test and was a bit unstable. However, after reading the VeriTest study it was only one Intel-based system manufactured by MPC that was unstable. The test only had two NVIDIA Business Platform based systems versus seven Intel-based systems



Do you notice the word AN. That means one. Hopefully they picked a representative slice (VeriTest) so that since Intel does right now sell 7 for every 2 AMD systems that is a fair comparison of a real world scenario.

It COULD be said that extrapolating for the amount of business systems would mean that a lot of systems arent up to snuff. That's math not hate.


He further - Anh Huynh NOT Anand - states that

Quote:
Ironically NVIDIA’s list of certified Business Platform motherboards consist of four Socket 939 based motherboards with no Socket AM2 Business Platform motherboards in sight. This is interesting as AMD’s latest PCN shows the Athlon 64 3200+ used in VeriTest’s test systems as being discontinued with a lot of other Socket 939 based processors.


This process takes longer for internal validation than the amount of time that the AM2 has been out. The fact that nForce 5 is not a "differnet" chipset and AM2 is not a different CPU we can agian extrapolate and determin ethat the same success will come from AM2 in Oct. Well before Dell's anticipated AMD ship dates. Opteron has proven itself already. desktops need to be easy to install and use in the millions/year.

Dell would demand this and AMD/nVidia is providing it. 30%. Say it with me.
July 12, 2006 1:55:27 AM

Oh as they qualify AM2 they will add them to the list. You can't just throw things on a list that means TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars.
July 12, 2006 1:56:16 AM

Quote:
No, but it does prove AMD WORTHY to COMPETE in the CPU market.

I told you ALL AMD and nVidia would push this platform with success. This is just the first of many. Dell will probably DEMAND it.


I think AMD's already proven they're more than worthy.

this results of this test are obviously presented in a very biased manner though, which makes the whole thing pointless imo.

Sounds familiar to me. The point of it was not to report that Intel failed but that AMD has been through VeriTest for business "images." I haven't read it but I was expecting this.

You are judging it and commenting without reading it, how professional... :?
You do realize they started with 7 machines of each, but only reported on 7 Intels and 2 AMD PC's... and fail to mention that 5 of the AMD PC's failed, but that did not support what they wanted to report! :p 

Surely you meant to state this based on your impecable analytical background? You prankster you! :wink:
July 12, 2006 1:59:26 AM

Quote:
As noted in daily tech it is odd that AMD touts a stable image platform -- when they themselves just discontinued all the supporting processors of the platform. Right now only socket 939 platforms fall under the first CSIP release.

Yes, I did notice that. I think their first CSIP platform ends in October or something so it isn't that bad in the end.

On a similar note, this is SIPP is also the reason why Intel must continue to offer Netburst processors in quantity since those are what corporations are buying. And when corporations buy they buy in bulk, which aught to help move inventory along. The price cuts to Netburst processors and the new D0 stepping with lower TDP just serve to make the platform more appealing. Also, even when Intel no longer has Netburst processors for their current SIPP platform, they will continue producing Netbursts for a while in order to support older platform versions. I believe they finally announced they would stop supporting 486, Pentiums, and the like a few months ago.
July 12, 2006 2:08:50 AM

I think AMD will continue using the nForce 430 platform since none of the current nForce5 chipsets use integrated graphics. This would of course ensure the stability of the motherboard as you say. AMD should do fine in stability tests since it really shouldn't be difficult to set up a Stable Image program as long as you don't cut corners in components. I wonder why AMD didn't start this earlier since it's a great market, but I guess they had to wait for someone do develop a good, widely excepted chipset in sufficient numbers, nVidia in this case.
July 12, 2006 2:09:28 AM

Quote:
Oh as they qualify AM2 they will add them to the list. You can't just throw things on a list that means TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars.


Adding, changing, and revising is against the spirit of the program -- it does not condone to a stable image (stable in this case is software image). How is a compay of 10K employees going to manage upteen different configurations, with different drivers, software base if the hardware is not consistent and known to accept such image??

So you're saying a CPU company can NEVER update their portfolio?
July 12, 2006 2:11:22 AM

Quote:
I think AMD will continue using the nForce 430 platform since none of the current nForce5 chipsets use integrated graphics. This would of course ensure the stability of the motherboard as you say. AMD should do fine in stability tests since it really shouldn't be difficult to set up a Stable Image program as long as you don't cut corners in components. I wonder why AMD didn't start this earlier since it's a great market, but I guess they had to wait for someone do develop a good, widely excepted chipset in sufficient numbers, nVidia in this case.


nForce 5 IGP is about to come out. It - IIRC - is going to be a part of the 80nm push. I believe they are moving up to 6600GT from 6200.
July 12, 2006 2:25:27 AM

Quote:
No, but it does prove AMD WORTHY to COMPETE in the CPU market.

I told you ALL AMD and nVidia would push this platform with success. This is just the first of many. Dell will probably DEMAND it.


I think AMD's already proven they're more than worthy.

this results of this test are obviously presented in a very biased manner though, which makes the whole thing pointless imo.

Sounds familiar to me. The point of it was not to report that Intel failed but that AMD has been through VeriTest for business "images." I haven't read it but I was expecting this.

You are judging it and commenting without reading it, how professional... :?
You do realize they started with 7 machines of each, but only reported on 7 Intels and 2 AMD PC's... and fail to mention that 5 of the AMD PC's failed, but that did not support what they wanted to report! :p 

Surely you meant to state this based on your impecable analytical background? You prankster you! :wink:

I said I didn't read it and still haven't. If they didn't overtly report that 5 failed I would cry foul. Even that number could be "spun" to say that failure rates are indicative of the newness of the platform and the "advanced prep" for AM2 boxes.


I'm off work now so I guess I'll read the article.
July 12, 2006 2:28:49 AM

Quote:
Oh as they qualify AM2 they will add them to the list. You can't just throw things on a list that means TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars.


Adding, changing, and revising is against the spirit of the program -- it does not condone to a stable image (stable in this case is software image). How is a compay of 10K employees going to manage upteen different configurations, with different drivers, software base if the hardware is not consistent and known to accept such image??

So you're saying a CPU company can NEVER update their portfolio?

Wow --- no, they can --- but when they advertise a program ensuring a platform will not change for x months, then 3 months later discontinue the product, it seems ODD.

You obviously do not understand the purpose of SIPP or CSIP. It is a guaranteed HW configuration so that one software image can be developed, qualified and deployed to 100's or even 1000's of identically configured PC/Laptops without worry of incompatibilities with drivers, software and such. This means chipset, CPU, and graphics. Corporations incur huge costs each time they need to deploy the latest driver patch or MS security upgrade, those costs grow geometrically if they also must maintain dozens of different configurations.


Oh shut up. As a dev who keeps getting these CHEAP DELLS to dev for server with, I WELCOME EVEN A CRAPPY AMD/nVIDIA MACHINE.


DO YOU UNDERSTAND????????


Or should I draw you a diagram???????????

<sidebar>
My true version of getting upset
</end sidebar>
July 12, 2006 2:49:06 AM

Quote:
No, but it does prove AMD WORTHY to COMPETE in the CPU market.

I told you ALL AMD and nVidia would push this platform with success. This is just the first of many. Dell will probably DEMAND it.


I think AMD's already proven they're more than worthy.

this results of this test are obviously presented in a very biased manner though, which makes the whole thing pointless imo.

Sounds familiar to me. The point of it was not to report that Intel failed but that AMD has been through VeriTest for business "images." I haven't read it but I was expecting this.

You are judging it and commenting without reading it, how professional... :?
You do realize they started with 7 machines of each, but only reported on 7 Intels and 2 AMD PC's... and fail to mention that 5 of the AMD PC's failed, but that did not support what they wanted to report! :p 

Surely you meant to state this based on your impecable analytical background? You prankster you! :wink:


All I can say now is that I read the 11 page PDF and I saw no mention of an additonal 5 systems. I'll read it again or you can post the section that says that.
July 12, 2006 3:17:41 AM

Quote:
No, but it does prove AMD WORTHY to COMPETE in the CPU market.

I told you ALL AMD and nVidia would push this platform with success. This is just the first of many. Dell will probably DEMAND it.


I think AMD's already proven they're more than worthy.

this results of this test are obviously presented in a very biased manner though, which makes the whole thing pointless imo.

Sounds familiar to me. The point of it was not to report that Intel failed but that AMD has been through VeriTest for business "images." I haven't read it but I was expecting this.

You are judging it and commenting without reading it, how professional... :?
You do realize they started with 7 machines of each, but only reported on 7 Intels and 2 AMD PC's... and fail to mention that 5 of the AMD PC's failed, but that did not support what they wanted to report! :p 

Surely you meant to state this based on your impecable analytical background? You prankster you! :wink:


All I can say now is that I read the 11 page PDF and I saw no mention of an additonal 5 systems. I'll read it again or you can post the section that says that.

Who are you trying to fool? We all know you can't read.
July 12, 2006 3:30:12 AM

Quote:
Your a developer?



That would actually be "you're" or one of the other six, but yes, I am.
July 12, 2006 3:32:59 AM

if you lay off those hormones, then your development may subside, and your mood swings may stabilize too. :wink: :lol:  :tongue:
July 12, 2006 3:34:48 AM

Quote:
Your a developer?



That would actually be "you're" or one of the other six, but yes, I am.

and Lithium may help with those other six personalities... :mrgreen: :tongue: :mrgreen:
July 12, 2006 3:34:59 AM

Quote:
Your a developer?


Hard to believe isn't it.... actually, he has claimed to be an analyst, an MS kernel debugger, a consultant, and now a developer.

Hard to figure.

Just so I can tell THE WHOLE WORLD.


I started out as an ME(mecahnaical engineeer), but found MS more interesting. I did USB testing which at that time was strictly kernel drivers. I have watched the industry and noticed trens away from the "800lb gorillas" in IT/SW - hmmm worked at MS only used Intel for his studio - hmmm. Most devs end up consulting as it's more flexible. Consultants are usually devs or testers.

STFU.
July 12, 2006 3:44:39 AM

I am afraid he is the boss of you, didnt you read his name? Hail zee baron! :wink:
July 12, 2006 3:46:14 AM

Quote:
Your a developer?



That would actually be "you're" or one of the other six, but yes, I am.

My mistake.
July 12, 2006 3:46:23 AM

Hey Baron, I guess you are right... I found your college essay... mind if I share it... 8) :wink:

I am a dynamic figure, often seen scaling walls and crushing ice. I have been known to remodel train stations on my lunch breaks, making them more efficient in the areas of heat retention. I translate ethnic slurs for Cuban refugees, I write award-winning operas, I manage time efficiently.

Occasionally, I treated water for three days in a row.

I woo women with my sensuous and god like trombone playing, I can pilot bicycles up severe inclines with unflagging speed, and I cook Thirty-Minute Brownies in twenty minutes. I am as expert in stucco, a veteran in love, and an outlaw in Peru.

Using only a ghow and a large glass of water, I once single-handedly defended a small village in the Amazon Basin from a horde of ferocious army ants. I play bluegrass cello, I was scouted by the Mets, I am the subject of numerous documentaries. When I’m bored, I build large suspension bridges in my yard. I enjoy urban hang gliding. On Wednesdays, after school, I repair electrical appliances free of charge.

I am an abstract artist, a concrete analyst, and a ruthless bookie. Critics worldwide swoon over my original line of corduroy evening wear. I don’t perspire. I am a private citizen, yet I receive fan mail. I have been caller number nine and have won the weekend passes. Last summer I toured New Jersey with a traveling centrifugal-force demonstration. I bat 400.

My deft floral arrangements have earned me fame in international botany circles. Children trust me.

I can hurl tennis rackets at small moving objects with deadly accuracy. I once read Paradise Lost, Moby Dick, and David Copperfield in one day and still had time to refurbish an entire dining room that evening. I know the exact location of every food item in the supermarket. I have performed several covert operations with the CIA. I sleep once a week; when I do sleep, I sleep in a chair. While on vacation in Canada, I successfully negotiated with a group of terrorists who had seized a small bakery. The laws of physics do not apply to me.

I balance, I weave, I dodge, I frolic, and my bills are all paid. On weekends, to let off steam, I participate in full-contact origami. Years ago I discovered the meaning of life but forgot to write it down. I have made extraordinary four course meals using only a mouli and a toaster oven.

I breed prizewinning clams. I have won bullfights in San Juan, cliff-diving competitions in Sri Lanka, and spelling bees at the Kremlin.

I have played Hamlet, I have performed open-heart surgery, and I have spoken with Elvis.

But I have not yet gone to college.
July 12, 2006 3:51:00 AM

Quote:
Your a developer?



That would actually be "you're" or one of the other six, but yes, I am.

My mistake.


One of the other six spellings (exaggerated in this case).
English is a B I T C H like that.
July 12, 2006 3:55:57 AM

Quote:
Your a developer?


Hard to believe isn't it.... actually, he has claimed to be an analyst, an MS kernel debugger, a consultant, and now a developer.

Hard to figure.

Just so I can tell THE WHOLE WORLD.


I started out as an ME(mecahnaical engineeer), but found MS more interesting. I did USB testing which at that time was strictly kernel drivers. I have watched the industry and noticed trens away from the "800lb gorillas" in IT/SW - hmmm worked at MS only used Intel for his studio - hmmm. Most devs end up consulting as it's more flexible. Consultants are usually devs or testers.

STFU.


Funny, when I earned my degree, it was spelled Mechanical Engineering.

Quote:
ME(mecahnaical engineeer)


Of course, we also had to take technical writing courses to train us to write sentences which actually made sense.

Quote:
hmmm worked at MS only used Intel for his studio


Guess I'm out of date, or your not really what you claim.
July 12, 2006 4:03:34 AM

Quote:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32955NVIDIA AND AMD released the results of an independent study which they claim show the stability of business systems in a good light against Intel stable image systems.
The firms used Veritest to conduct stability testing and benchmarks showing how the AMD stable image platform programme machines fared.

The results, said Veritest, showed both Nvidia and Intel chipsets passed a 15-day burn in process.

But Veritest claimed some Intel chipset machines failed to run real world benchmarks after more than 50 retries.


So, after all Intel doesn't seem to be as "reliabale" as many have thought. 8)

Interesting, DailyTech reported the same thing but had a different take than you did.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3242

Quote:
According to AMD’s skewed press release an Intel based system failed the 15-day burn-in test and was a bit unstable. However, after reading the VeriTest study it was only one Intel-based system manufactured by MPC that was unstable. The test only had two NVIDIA Business Platform based systems versus seven Intel-based systems.



Jack,

Surely you are not trying to besmirch 9 nanometers luminuos reputation by implying he stated an opinion of an Inquirer story without actually bothering to verify the information, are you?

Peace :lol: 
July 12, 2006 4:04:19 AM

lets not be spelling nazis.
July 12, 2006 11:42:22 AM

Quote:
Your a developer?


Hard to believe isn't it.... actually, he has claimed to be an analyst, an MS kernel debugger, a consultant, and now a developer.

Hard to figure.

Just so I can tell THE WHOLE WORLD.


I started out as an ME(mecahnaical engineeer), but found MS more interesting. I did USB testing which at that time was strictly kernel drivers. I have watched the industry and noticed trens away from the "800lb gorillas" in IT/SW - hmmm worked at MS only used Intel for his studio - hmmm. Most devs end up consulting as it's more flexible. Consultants are usually devs or testers.

STFU.


Funny, when I earned my degree, it was spelled Mechanical Engineering.

Quote:
ME(mecahnaical engineeer)


Of course, we also had to take technical writing courses to train us to write sentences which actually made sense.

Quote:
hmmm worked at MS only used Intel for his studio


Guess I'm out of date, or your not really what you claim.


Typos and misspellings are not the same thing. Crawl back under your rock. Odoriferousness is not a sign of strength.
July 12, 2006 1:45:05 PM

So what exactly are you developing then?
July 12, 2006 1:54:32 PM

Yes, Intels arent as reliable... they are even more reliable.
July 12, 2006 4:48:24 PM

This "Beat On BaronMatrix" mentality needs to cease immediately. This is exactly the childish behavior that has forced me to stop posting in this wretched forum.
July 12, 2006 4:58:48 PM

Quote:
I think AMD will continue using the nForce 430 platform since none of the current nForce5 chipsets use integrated graphics. This would of course ensure the stability of the motherboard as you say. AMD should do fine in stability tests since it really shouldn't be difficult to set up a Stable Image program as long as you don't cut corners in components. I wonder why AMD didn't start this earlier since it's a great market, but I guess they had to wait for someone do develop a good, widely excepted chipset in sufficient numbers, nVidia in this case.


nForce 5 IGP is about to come out. It - IIRC - is going to be a part of the 80nm push. I believe they are moving up to 6600GT from 6200.

BM --

Aside from the fact that AMD announces a 'stable image' program only to discontinue the announced CPU within that program, here is a good example why AMD's approach to a certified stable image platform will likely not work:

http://www.hardocp.com/index.html : Crashing NVIDIA WHQL Drivers

Now, I don't know about you -- but if I was heading up a medium size company and all of a sudden a few hundred of my employ's computers started crashing and corrupting the OS/hard drives due to a chipset driver, I would be a little put out, not to mention out a lot of money.

AMD has no control over the chipset nor the resources that support them... this is a key cornerstone in the approach to the coporate-commercial space -- and it will be difficult for them to pull off. Intel, of course, produces their own, writes their own drivers and is able to validate the entire platform top to bottom with shared resources, this is an advantage.


I guess the same way Intel had to produce a new stepping. I have always had nVidia and have never had a HW crash, BSOD, lockup, or anyhting else.

AMD doesn't want control of the chipset. This willl be a fine addition to Dell's lineup.
July 12, 2006 5:00:07 PM

Quote:
So what exactly are you developing then?



an aneurism. :lol: 
July 12, 2006 5:01:42 PM

Quote:
This "Beat On BaronMatrix" mentality needs to cease immediately. This is exactly the childish behavior that has forced me to stop posting in this wretched forum.



They'll have the sore hands. Let them be.
July 12, 2006 5:51:28 PM

Quote:
So what exactly are you developing then?



an aneurism. :lol: 

Finally you've achieved something everyone else can be proud of.
July 12, 2006 5:59:27 PM

Quote:
So what exactly are you developing then?



an aneurism. :lol: 

Finally you've achieved something everyone else can be proud of.


But it's not a tumor. :lol: 
July 12, 2006 6:22:44 PM

I would have to agree, well I do beleive he is incorrect sometimes I dont believe it warrants the repreve he gets. The people who are deserving of a somewhat violent reaction are people like MMM, 9Inch, gotaloveIMC and coolzmikey. When they are wrong they simply refuse to admit it in any way, as well as insulting any who challange their POV.
July 12, 2006 6:26:08 PM

Quote:
Your a developer?


Hard to believe isn't it.... actually, he has claimed to be an analyst, an MS kernel debugger, a consultant, and now a developer.

Hard to figure.

Just so I can tell THE WHOLE WORLD.


I started out as an ME(mecahnaical engineeer), but found MS more interesting. I did USB testing which at that time was strictly kernel drivers. I have watched the industry and noticed trens away from the "800lb gorillas" in IT/SW - hmmm worked at MS only used Intel for his studio - hmmm. Most devs end up consulting as it's more flexible. Consultants are usually devs or testers.

STFU.


Funny, when I earned my degree, it was spelled Mechanical Engineering.

Quote:
ME(mecahnaical engineeer)


Of course, we also had to take technical writing courses to train us to write sentences which actually made sense.

Quote:
hmmm worked at MS only used Intel for his studio


Guess I'm out of date, or your not really what you claim.


Typos and misspellings are not the same thing. Crawl back under your rock. Odoriferousness is not a sign of strength.

Once again, a case of the pot calling the kettle black. While I am far from a perfect typist, one of the fundemental principles of ANY of the engineering diciplines is "Attention to detail". Lack of that, especially in ME, gets people killed. It means you go back and recheck your work to insure its correct. You, clearly, do not, which again leads me to question your credentials.

You cannot have logical arguments if your statements have no logic. I would still love for you to decipher:
Quote:
hmmm worked at MS only used Intel for his studio


Im guessing it means your the NASA technician who forgot to convert from metric to SAE
July 12, 2006 6:27:22 PM

Quote:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32955NVIDIA AND AMD released the results of an independent study which they claim show the stability of business systems in a good light against Intel stable image systems.
The firms used Veritest to conduct stability testing and benchmarks showing how the AMD stable image platform programme machines fared.

The results, said Veritest, showed both Nvidia and Intel chipsets passed a 15-day burn in process.

But Veritest claimed some Intel chipset machines failed to run real world benchmarks after more than 50 retries.


So, after all Intel doesn't seem to be as "reliabale" as many have thought. 8)

You are infuriating! Why dont you ever stay to defend yourself? Why would you even pay attention to a test done by a competing company? Why why why?
July 12, 2006 6:48:45 PM

Quote:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32955NVIDIA AND AMD released the results of an independent study which they claim show the stability of business systems in a good light against Intel stable image systems.
The firms used Veritest to conduct stability testing and benchmarks showing how the AMD stable image platform programme machines fared.

The results, said Veritest, showed both Nvidia and Intel chipsets passed a 15-day burn in process.

But Veritest claimed some Intel chipset machines failed to run real world benchmarks after more than 50 retries.


So, after all Intel doesn't seem to be as "reliabale" as many have thought. 8)

You are infuriating! Why dont you ever stay to defend yourself? Why would you even pay attention to a test done by a competing company? Why why why?

He doesn’t stay to defend himself because aside from the evidence that he is not a "true" poster, but rather an AMD marketing plant, his posts are indefensible. He simply regurgitates pro AMD headlines without bothering to investigate their validity. If he took the time to verify the information he posts, he would find it was usually incorrect and/or out of context and thus, never post anything.
July 12, 2006 6:57:20 PM

Quote:
You cannot have logical arguments if your statements have no logic. I would still love for you to decipher:
BaronMatrix wrote:
hmmm worked at MS only used Intel for his studio



Well, let's see:

hmmm... worked at MS; only used Intel for his studio;

HAPPY

I guess it was meant to be a sentence fragment
July 12, 2006 7:04:53 PM

Good for you I guess?
I dont have any problems with bashing fanpois, the mature or the childish way, I dont care :lol: 
July 12, 2006 7:24:10 PM

Quote:
While I am far from a perfect typist, one of the fundemental principles of ANY of the engineering diciplines is "Attention to detail". Lack of that, especially in ME, gets people killed.



This is a CPU forum not a CNC design session.
July 12, 2006 9:40:02 PM

Quote:
While I am far from a perfect typist, one of the fundemental principles of ANY of the engineering diciplines is "Attention to detail". Lack of that, especially in ME, gets people killed.



This is a CPU forum not a CNC design session.

ROFLMAO

You're quite right, I doubt you could speak with any more credibility in a computer numeric controlled machine design forum than you can here. However, it is you who has used your claim of a degree in ME to lend yourself and thus your statements credibility, not I. Yet when your bet is called, you whine:
Quote:
This is a CPU forum not a CNC design session.
.

Well guess what, I concur with you. Absolutely. As such, I expect you will refrain from claiming you hold a ME degree in further attempts to provide yourself any sort of expert stature or “air of authority” within the CPU forum. You started this argument, not me.


In regards to your arguments, what you don’t seem to understand is that just as 9 Inch does more to tarnish AMDs reputation than shine it with his opinionated, unsubstantiated blathering, your methodology discredits anyone who holds a degree in ME. What does that mean? Well, in case you haven’t noticed, you don’t seem to get much respect in Tom’s forums, except from a very limited group of acknowledged Fanboys. Why? Simple, you don’t deserve it. Did you ever wonder why some people on this forum command respect, while others such as yourself fight uselessly for it? Several reasons Here’s why:

Oh, before I proceed, let me state that I know for fact that I am not one of those few who deserve respect in this forum for their CPU technical acuity, I do not presume to include myself in that group, nor will I ever claimed to be in that group.

Back to the why:

Those who have earned their respect: Jumping Jack, RichPLS etc.
Those who have not: BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc.

Jumping Jack, RichPLS etc: Clearly identify theories, arguments and opinions
BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc: Make inflexible argumentative statements, or jump on argumentative bandwagons

Jumping Jack, RichPLS etc: Take time to research all sides of theory, argument, or opinion
BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc: Provide only one side of theory or argument: Theirs

Jumping Jack, RichPLS etc: Provide both positive and negative information from their research as it relates to the theory, argument or opinion at hand
BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc: Provide only information which is pro-their argument or point of view.

Jumping Jack, and RichPLS etc: Provide access to multiple sources of information, both positive and negative, in order to legitimately substantiate that information.
BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc: Provide…..The Inquirer or themselves as sources of information, with no further substantiation

Jumping Jack, RichPLS etc: Identify sources reliability and provide justification of reliability rating
BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc: Rigidly adhere to notion that The Inquirer and their opinions are reliable, even when conclusively proven wrong.

Jumping Jack, and RichPLS etc: Set positive/negative information into logical arguments
BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc: Present only pro-their-opinion information allowing no room for examination of negative factors, or blithely disregard negative information

Jumping Jack, RichPLS etc: Seek to address positive/negative information with substantiated facts
BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc: Don’t spend time substantiating negative information or facts, and present their opinions as substantiated fact

Jumping Jack, RichPLS etc: Draw conclusions based on the sum of information presented
BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc: Come pre-opinionated with conclusions in hand

Jumping Jack, and RichPLS etc: Differentiate between their opinions and fact
BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc: State their opinions AS fact

Jumping Jack, RichPLS etc: Admit when they are wrong or have made a mistake
BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc: Never wrong or mistaken, according to themselves

Jumping Jack, RichPLS etc: Admit when they don’t know, or are unsure and clearly identify their opinions as just that, opinions.
BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc: Always sure, always know, EVEN IN THE FACE OF SUBSTACIATED FACT PROVING OTHERWISE

In short, if someone were to ask a question of you or Jack, they could reasonably expect a factually truthful answer from Jack, regardless of its implications. You…well there’s really no point in asking because your answer is already known… the fanboy opinionated answer

People like you both shame and scare me. You’re so narrow minded and opinionated, you are incapable of admitting you may be wrong. It embarrasses me that you may hold the same credentials that I do. That very inability to admit you may be wrong is an exceptionally dangerous personality trait in someone who may design something which someone’s life may depend on, regardless of whether it’s an aircraft, automobile etc or the microprocessor that controls it.

With the aforementioned stated, I would now expect one of your witty and intellectually challenging (or challenged?) responses such as “Oh STFU” You should get that copyrighted, you seem to use it quite a bit
July 12, 2006 10:29:54 PM

Quote:
While I am far from a perfect typist, one of the fundemental principles of ANY of the engineering diciplines is "Attention to detail". Lack of that, especially in ME, gets people killed.



This is a CPU forum not a CNC design session.

ROFLMAO

You're quite right, I doubt you could speak with any more credibility in a computer numeric controlled machine design forum than you can here. However, it is you who has used your claim of a degree in ME to lend yourself and thus your statements credibility, not I. Yet when your bet is called, you whine:
Quote:
This is a CPU forum not a CNC design session.
.

Well guess what, I concur with you. Absolutely. As such, I expect you will refrain from claiming you hold a ME degree in further attempts to provide yourself any sort of expert stature or “air of authority” within the CPU forum. You started this argument, not me.


In regards to your arguments, what you don’t seem to understand is that just as 9 Inch does more to tarnish AMDs reputation than shine it with his opinionated, unsubstantiated blathering, your methodology discredits anyone who holds a degree in ME. What does that mean? Well, in case you haven’t noticed, you don’t seem to get much respect in Tom’s forums, except from a very limited group of acknowledged Fanboys. Why? Simple, you don’t deserve it. Did you ever wonder why some people on this forum command respect, while others such as yourself fight uselessly for it? Several reasons Here’s why:

Oh, before I proceed, let me state that I know for fact that I am not one of those few who deserve respect in this forum for their CPU technical acuity, I do not presume to include myself in that group, nor will I ever claimed to be in that group.

Back to the why:

Those who have earned their respect: Jumping Jack, RichPLS etc.
Those who have not: BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc.

Jumping Jack, RichPLS etc: Clearly identify theories, arguments and opinions
BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc: Make inflexible argumentative statements, or jump on argumentative bandwagons

Jumping Jack, RichPLS etc: Take time to research all sides of theory, argument, or opinion
BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc: Provide only one side of theory or argument: Theirs

Jumping Jack, RichPLS etc: Provide both positive and negative information from their research as it relates to the theory, argument or opinion at hand
BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc: Provide only information which is pro-their argument or point of view.

Jumping Jack, and RichPLS etc: Provide access to multiple sources of information, both positive and negative, in order to legitimately substantiate that information.
BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc: Provide…..The Inquirer or themselves as sources of information, with no further substantiation

Jumping Jack, RichPLS etc: Identify sources reliability and provide justification of reliability rating
BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc: Rigidly adhere to notion that The Inquirer and their opinions are reliable, even when conclusively proven wrong.

Jumping Jack, and RichPLS etc: Set positive/negative information into logical arguments
BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc: Present only pro-their-opinion information allowing no room for examination of negative factors, or blithely disregard negative information

Jumping Jack, RichPLS etc: Seek to address positive/negative information with substantiated facts
BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc: Don’t spend time substantiating negative information or facts, and present their opinions as substantiated fact

Jumping Jack, RichPLS etc: Draw conclusions based on the sum of information presented
BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc: Come pre-opinionated with conclusions in hand

Jumping Jack, and RichPLS etc: Differentiate between their opinions and fact
BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc: State their opinions AS fact

Jumping Jack, RichPLS etc: Admit when they are wrong or have made a mistake
BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc: Never wrong or mistaken, according to themselves

Jumping Jack, RichPLS etc: Admit when they don’t know, or are unsure and clearly identify their opinions as just that, opinions.
BM, 9 inch, MMM, Shariboob etc: Always sure, always know, EVEN IN THE FACE OF SUBSTACIATED FACT PROVING OTHERWISE

In short, if someone were to ask a question of you or Jack, they could reasonably expect a factually truthful answer from Jack, regardless of its implications. You…well there’s really no point in asking because your answer is already known… the fanboy opinionated answer

People like you both shame and scare me. You’re so narrow minded and opinionated, you are incapable of admitting you may be wrong. It embarrasses me that you may hold the same credentials that I do. That very inability to admit you may be wrong is an exceptionally dangerous personality trait in someone who may design something which someone’s life may depend on, regardless of whether it’s an aircraft, automobile etc or the microprocessor that controls it.

With the aforementioned stated, I would now expect one of your witty and intellectually challenging (or challenged?) responses such as “Oh STFU” You should get that copyrighted, you seem to use it quite a bit


BEcause you suck so bad I DON'T WANT YOUR RESPECT. Keep riding on Intel's coattails. It still doesn't make you anyone.

I take my time when I do reverse kinematics and fuzzy logic algorithms.
July 12, 2006 11:33:49 PM

Quote:


BEcause you suck so bad I DON'T WANT YOUR RESPECT. Keep riding on Intel's coattails. It still doesn't make you anyone.

I take my time when I do reverse kinematics and fuzzy logic algorithms.



Sorry it took so long to reply, but I was unconscious on the floor for some time due to a lack of oxygen from laughing so hard at the irony of your statements.

You say you take your time? I doubt it, but if you do, you should apply the same practice to your posts. Do you actually listen to yourself, or read what you write? You seem to keep tossing "big" words out as a way to impress or scare people, as if you understand their meanings. I doubt you know what kinematics is, so I'll give you its definition: The science of motion.

As for Fuzzy Logic, I unabashedly acknowledge that, by its very definition, you, 9 inch, MMM and Shariboob are all masters of it: Fuzzy Logic--Provides a simple way to arrive at a conclusion based upon vague, ambiguous, imprecise, noisy, or missing input information

As for clear implication that I am an Intel fanboy "Keep riding on Intel's coattails" you'd better take a closer look. If someone were to be forced to label me, in regards to Intel or AMD, I would be labeled an AMD Fanboy.

I have great respect for AMD. The people at AMD have worked diligently to produce innovative solutions in Uarch design which have realized great potential. They persevered through adversity and against great odds to achieve noteworthy levels of success in an arena dominated by another competitor.

And what they achieved was yesterday, i.e. history.

If AMD expects continued success they cannot lie on their laurels, but must apply the experience they have gained to the design of new products. Whether or not they are doing this now, or will do this in the future, I cannot say. Niether, for that fact of the matter can you. Only time will tell. Personally, I very much hope they do, as I would love to see them continue their success. As for Intel, If Conroe lives up to the hype, it will greatly exceed AMD's current and near future offerings in terms of performance. Again, time (23 Jul 06, specifically) will tell. And if Conroe does lives up to the hype, then Intel too will have earned my respect, for:
1) Realizing that marketing, no matter how effective, cannot permanently mask inferior design.
2) Designing a product with improved Uarch yielding greater performance without sacrificing efficiency.
And, the other thing Intel will earn, if Conroe lives up to the hype, is my money, which I will give to them to replace the AMD based system I am using at this very moment.


Quote:
....doesn't make you anyone.

Not only did I never claim I was anyone, but I clearly stated:
Quote:
Oh, before I proceed, let me state that I know for fact that I am not one of those few who deserve respect in this forum for their CPU technical acuity, I do not presume to include myself in that group, nor will I ever claimed to be in that group.


Quote:
BEcause you suck so bad I DON'T WANT YOUR RESPECT.


Well, I’m glad to hear that, as considering your approach to this forum, you will probably never earn it.


Do you realize that every sentence of your response was tainted with ignorance?
!