Hmmm....talk about a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Enough already, stop the whining and show us some real numbers.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=438
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=438
Does anyone know if this 10-40% advantage of k8L over core2 is for clock for clock???
I was just complaining about this yesterday in another thread. I am sure all of these companies have done this kind of stuff before. no one holds these guys accountable for this kind of stuff. those amd execs are making allot of bold claims and statments but so far are proving the opposite of what they claim
AMD thought long and hard today about how to respond to Ou's claims, before electing to decline comment to BetaNews.
http://www.betanews.com/article/AMD_Claims_of_Intel_Benchmarks_Not_Ethical_Scrutinized/1172873475
AMD thought long and hard today about how to respond to Ou's claims, before electing to decline comment to BetaNews.
Does anyone know if this 10-40% advantage of k8L over core2 is for clock for clock???
Does anyone know if this 10-40% advantage of k8L over core2 is for clock for clock???
Hypocritical? Maybe. But at least they are touting month-old benchmarks, rather than 5 year old benchmarks (from the video).
Not to mention, this was a presentation about AMD products. Not a comparison between AMD and Intel products.
Besides, why is it even a problem? People can see that benchmark data is 5 years old or 5 days old. And he does have a point. Intel does seem to be taking a bullying approach to competing with AMD. At least thats what I got out of the video and articles.
AMD had no problems with it last November:Hypocritical? Maybe. But at least they are touting month-old benchmarks, rather than 5 year old benchmarks (from the video).
AMD had their own aggressive marketing when they were ahead, like their multi-core for dummies book.Besides, why is it even a problem? People can see that benchmark data is 5 years old or 5 days old. And he does have a point. Intel does seem to be taking a bullying approach to competing with AMD. At least thats what I got out of the video and articles.
WOW, the only thing worse than a lier is a whinny lier.
Good point.... first they say 40% better using SPEC_2000, then complain when Intel uses SPEC_2000 that's kinda funny.
AMD had no problems with it last November:Hypocritical? Maybe. But at least they are touting month-old benchmarks, rather than 5 year old benchmarks (from the video).
AMD had their own aggressive marketing when they were ahead, like their multi-core for dummies book. We can't forget AMD's cockiness with their "dual-core challenge":Besides, why is it even a problem? People can see that benchmark data is 5 years old or 5 days old. And he does have a point. Intel does seem to be taking a bullying approach to competing with AMD. At least thats what I got out of the video and articles.
We can't forget AMD's cockiness with their "dual-core challenge":
Is AMD hoping we'll all forget this?
AMD had no problems with it last November:Hypocritical? Maybe. But at least they are touting month-old benchmarks, rather than 5 year old benchmarks (from the video).
AMD had their own aggressive marketing when they were ahead, like their multi-core for dummies book. We can't forget AMD's cockiness with their "dual-core challenge":Besides, why is it even a problem? People can see that benchmark data is 5 years old or 5 days old. And he does have a point. Intel does seem to be taking a bullying approach to competing with AMD. At least thats what I got out of the video and articles.
We can't forget AMD's cockiness with their "dual-core challenge":
Is AMD hoping we'll all forget this?
Hypocritical? Maybe. But at least they are touting month-old benchmarks, rather than 5 year old benchmarks (from the video).
Not to mention, this was a presentation about AMD products. Not a comparison between AMD and Intel products.
Besides, why is it even a problem? People can see that benchmark data is 5 years old or 5 days old. And he does have a point. Intel does seem to be taking a bullying approach to competing with AMD. At least thats what I got out of the video and articles.
AMD never said 4x4 was supposed to be faster than C2Q. They said it would shows linear increases in threaded environments and allow for intensive multi-tasking(I can't say mega-...).