Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is AMD being hypocritical about benchmark ethics?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 2, 2007 9:04:30 PM

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
March 2, 2007 9:56:29 PM

WOW, the only thing worse than a lier is a whinny lier.
March 2, 2007 10:22:21 PM

So far, AMD's talking a good game. Now can they walk a good game? If the damned proc's so good, start releasing some ES procs WITHOUT NDA's.
Related resources
March 2, 2007 10:51:01 PM

Does anyone know if this 10-40% advantage of k8L over core2 is for clock for clock???
March 2, 2007 10:55:59 PM

Quote:
Does anyone know if this 10-40% advantage of k8L over core2 is for clock for clock???


AMD are deliberately remaining vague on that.
March 2, 2007 10:59:33 PM

Quote:
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


Yeah, but AMD cant be held accountable as they are the "morally superior" company
March 2, 2007 11:27:04 PM

Quote:
http://www.betanews.com/article/AMD_Claims_of_Intel_Ben...
AMD thought long and hard today about how to respond to Ou's claims, before electing to decline comment to BetaNews.


AMD is funny. Har har :lol: 

Well, your link is now the third article Ive seen about this incident. (IMO it now offically ranks as 'incident' :wink: ) I'll be honest, IMO I dont think it was intentional, at least not by Richards. I only think this because I cant believe he would have been so stupid as to try and pull off a stunt like that. He would have had to have known that someone would have figured it out and publicized the fact. Just as they did.

Regardless, he is now omlet ale' Richards because of the egg on his face. It matters little though, the Horde will forgive him if only to aviod admiting that AMD can make mistakes or is not as morally superior as they claim.
March 3, 2007 1:19:34 AM

Quote:
Does anyone know if this 10-40% advantage of k8L over core2 is for clock for clock???


AMD are deliberately remaining vague on that.

Extremely vague. I remember that when the 4X4 was first announces last summer, that there was a vague number also thrown out that had the 4X4 performing XX% faster than the intel chips, and of course we know what happened there. It's also interesting how similar this barcelona release has been to that of the 4X4, very little benchmark numbers. I remember when the Athlon64 was first introduced, they had benchmarks everywhere months before the actual release. What's changed?
March 3, 2007 2:07:58 AM

Quote:
Does anyone know if this 10-40% advantage of k8L over core2 is for clock for clock???


AMD are deliberately remaining vague on that.

Extremely vague. I remember that when the 4X4 was first announces last summer, that there was a vague number also thrown out that had the 4X4 performing XX% faster than the intel chips, and of course we know what happened there. It's also interesting how similar this barcelona release has been to that of the 4X4, very little benchmark numbers. I remember when the Athlon64 was first introduced, they had benchmarks everywhere months before the actual release. What's changed?

Well said. Right now there's a complete role reversal of what was going on a few years ago.

Back then Intel was always hesitant releasing new info and benchmarks of its NetBurst based chips.

Now with Core, they're proud to paste advertisements everywhere, benchmarks on their sites and release ES for reviewers everywhere.

Where are thou AMD?
March 3, 2007 2:21:37 AM

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.
March 3, 2007 3:35:59 AM

Quote:
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.


Hypocritical, period. They brought this up and now can't even provide an answer to why they did the same thing with their recent benchmarks. Hypocrisy is a mutha.
March 3, 2007 4:19:33 AM

Quote:
Hypocritical? Maybe. But at least they are touting month-old benchmarks, rather than 5 year old benchmarks (from the video).

AMD had no problems with it last November:
http://i17.tinypic.com/2eq51k5.jpg

Manufacturer's using the latest AMD processors seemed to have no problems submitting results for SPEC 2000, since these results were submitted by the system manufacturers themselves.

Quote:
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 their own aggressive marketing when they were ahead, like their multi-core for dummies book.
March 3, 2007 4:43:38 AM

Nah...it's only Henri Richards full of BS, as always.
March 3, 2007 4:59:19 AM

Quote:
WOW, the only thing worse than a lier is a whinny lier.


Everyone is a lier -- meaning we lie down to sleep. :wink:

I think you meant to use "liar" instead of "lier".
March 3, 2007 5:08:27 AM

Quote:
Good point.... first they say 40% better using SPEC_2000, then complain when Intel uses SPEC_2000 :)  :)  that's kinda funny.


AMD is betting that most people either have short term memories or never heard this complaint against Intel.

Or else... maybe... AMD has a short term memory or never heard this complaint against Intel. :lol: 
a b à CPUs
March 3, 2007 5:58:49 AM

Like every company, they will promote that their newest product is the best thing since sliced bread and do some questionable tactics to get people to believe it's the best.
March 3, 2007 6:22:31 AM

Quote:
Hypocritical? Maybe. But at least they are touting month-old benchmarks, rather than 5 year old benchmarks (from the video).

AMD had no problems with it last November:
http://i17.tinypic.com/2eq51k5.jpg

Manufacturer's using the latest AMD processors seemed to have no problems submitting results for SPEC 2000, since these results were submitted by the system manufacturers themselves.

Quote:
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 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": :wink:

Is AMD hoping we'll all forget this?
March 3, 2007 6:41:33 AM

Quote:
We can't forget AMD's cockiness with their "dual-core challenge": :wink:

Is AMD hoping we'll all forget this?


Intel did not accept AMD's challenge. Now that the tables have turned, I wonder if AMD would accept a similar challenge from Intel? I think we all know the answer to that. :wink:

btw: Here's a link to AMD's top ten reasons as to why Intel did not accept the challenge. Now that is cocky! :lol: 
March 3, 2007 6:42:37 AM

Quote:
Hypocritical? Maybe. But at least they are touting month-old benchmarks, rather than 5 year old benchmarks (from the video).

AMD had no problems with it last November:
http://i17.tinypic.com/2eq51k5.jpg

Manufacturer's using the latest AMD processors seemed to have no problems submitting results for SPEC 2000, since these results were submitted by the system manufacturers themselves.

Quote:
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 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": :wink:

Is AMD hoping we'll all forget this?

Oh I do remember that now! I LOL'd when I watched that video. I couldn't believe the hubris they were showing. I guess they got what was coming to them then.

I think about that set of videos sometimes, and I can't help but think that Intel was too busy getting their new products ready to mess around with trying to make Netburst outperform K8. Seems to me that the exact reverse of roles is true now, at least from the marketing side of things.

The future, I feel, holds many strange and wonderful things for us. Things we cannot see, cannot feel, cannot even imagine...

OK. Now I'm getting delirious. Its bedtime for me. See you all tomorrow!

The future: VIA is going to take the CPU market by storm!!!!11elevenone
March 3, 2007 7:26:56 AM

TBH I cant remember AMD not being hypocritical.

But as already stated, thats common practics.
March 3, 2007 8:49:30 AM

Quote:
We can't forget AMD's cockiness with their "dual-core challenge": :wink:

Is AMD hoping we'll all forget this?


Intel did not accept AMD's challenge. Now that the tables have turned, I wonder if AMD would accept a similar challenge from Intel? I think we all know the answer to that. :wink:

btw: Here's a link to AMD's top ten reasons as to why Intel did not accept the challenge. Now that is cocky! :lol: #2 is just utterly amazing. Who's kissing DELL's ass now? :roll:
March 3, 2007 11:38:38 AM

Quote:
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.


Hypocritical, period. They brought this up and now can't even provide an answer to why they did the same thing with their recent benchmarks. Hypocrisy is a mutha.

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-...).
March 3, 2007 3:17:39 PM

Quote:
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-...).


Of course they didn't --- because it wasn't. They did claim 80% performance improvement over certain aps compared to a k8.

Both points sound pretty reasonable as well as believable.
March 3, 2007 4:07:56 PM

Id say the funniest thing is that you cant see the Barcelona die to begin with.
March 3, 2007 4:35:01 PM

Quote:
:)  It is a joke, gODJO took the photo of Richard holding a Barcelona Quad die and a Clovertown quad die (you know the stuff AMD goes on about MCP vs true Quad), he then painted over 2 dual core opteron chips because this was about the time the 4x4 was also launched.....

A bit of humorous irony that AMD slaps two dual core CPUs into two sockets to compete with the single socket quad from Intel.

Jack



Good job gOJDO! :) 

You actually have some people questioning the authenticity of the photo.
!