"AMD, Nvidia Beat Business PC Drum"

[9-inch]

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32955

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)

 

[Legenic]

AMD discovered a flaw in intel systems? stop the presses.

 

[RichPLS]

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

Word!

 

[BaronMatrix]

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.

 

[ltcommander_data]

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.

 

[Legenic]

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.

 

[BaronMatrix]

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.

 

[BaronMatrix]

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

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

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.

 

[BaronMatrix]

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.

 

[RichPLS]

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!

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

 

[ltcommander_data]

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.

 

[ltcommander_data]

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.

 

[BaronMatrix]

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?

 

[BaronMatrix]

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.

 

[BaronMatrix]

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!

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

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.

 

[BaronMatrix]

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>

 

[BaronMatrix]

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!

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


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.

 

[bixplus]

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!

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


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.

 

[MatTheMurdera]

Your a developer?

 

[BaronMatrix]

Your a developer?

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

 

[RichPLS]

if you lay off those hormones, then your development may subside, and your mood swings may stabilize too. :lol: :tongue:

 

[RichPLS]

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:

 

[BaronMatrix]

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.

 

[MatTheMurdera]

I am afraid he is the boss of you, didnt you read his name? Hail zee baron!

 

[MatTheMurdera]

Your a developer?

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

My mistake.