Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel cheating again.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2009 1:31:59 PM

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1558372/intel-...

http://techreport.com/articles.x/17732/1

Intel prove that graphically they are years behind ATI and Nvidia by cheating at 3dmark. Both those companies stopped doing it 6 years ago...funnily enough thats how far behind intels graphics are today.

When you have nothing, intel believe it's better to cheat and lie instead of throwing some of their $billions at fixing the problem properly. Remember that next time you are thinking about buying anything with intel inside.

More about : intel cheating

October 13, 2009 2:21:17 PM

I agree with JennyH on this one (to a reasonable extent). I trust the TechReport source and if changing the filename affects score by 46% that's just bogus.
October 13, 2009 2:40:34 PM

Intel's response:

Quote:
We have engineered intelligence into our 4 series graphics driver such that when a workload saturates graphics engine with pixel and vertex processing, the CPU can assist with DX10 geometry processing to enhance overall performance. 3DMarkVantage is one of those workloads, as are Call of Juarez, Crysis, Lost Planet: Extreme Conditions, and Company of Heroes. We have used similar techniques with DX9 in previous products and drivers. The benefit to users is optimized performance based on best use of the hardware available in the system. Our driver is currently in the certification process with Futuremark and we fully expect it will pass their certification as did our previous DX9 drivers.


But why can't the driver do this regardless what's being run on it? Why can't the driver recognize, regarless of the name, that certain tasks can be offloaded to the CPU?

I agree with TechCrunch's conclusion that Intel graphics driver isn't compliant with 3dMark's guidelines for approval. My huge beef with this (which may surprise people who think I'm an Intel Fanboy) is that it does NOT translate into real-world performance, it just increases benchmark scores.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2009 2:45:51 PM

A good response on the TechReport from a jdaven..

Quote:
Now you might say well the customer can just look at real gaming benchmarks. Intel thought of this too and made the optimization work for other major games benchmarked by review sites and not just every game. Tell yourself this, why can't Intel offload work to the CPU in every game and allow the user to check this in the device driver panel. They are only offloading in the most benchmarked games. Also, why can you just change the .exe name and lose the optimization? That doesn't make sense.
October 13, 2009 2:54:19 PM

jennyh said:
A good response on the TechReport from a jdaven..

Quote:
Now you might say well the customer can just look at real gaming benchmarks. Intel thought of this too and made the optimization work for other major games benchmarked by review sites and not just every game. Tell yourself this, why can't Intel offload work to the CPU in every game and allow the user to check this in the device driver panel. They are only offloading in the most benchmarked games. Also, why can you just change the .exe name and lose the optimization? That doesn't make sense.


I read his\her response as well and I thought it was very level headed. He also addressed about optimizations targeting major games such as Crysis. He noted while the gain might be real in Crysis, that it still isn't kosher because after all, Crysis is probably being target in part because it's a benchmark.

What happens when I load up a less popular game such as SimCity 4, and all of a sudden the GPU can't handle it as well.




Oh noes... I just opened up a thread... made by JennyH... that was called "Intel is Cheating...".... and agreed with her...

SERENITY NOW!
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2009 3:29:31 PM

a company cheating something to seem more profitable?!?!? NOOO!!! WTFF!! NEVER BEEN DONE IN THE HISTORY OF HISTORY!!! AMD WOULD NEVER DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE AMD AND THEY ARE ALWAYS THE UNDERDOG!

on a serious note, if this surprises you then you need to get out of your cave.
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2009 3:35:08 PM

It's not the fact that intel are cheating again - believe me I'm the worlds least surprised by that - it's quite disturbing that they do this sort of thing and don't expect to get caught.
October 13, 2009 3:42:52 PM

jennyh said:
intel are cheating


Is.

Intel IS cheating.




But that aside, it does question the legitimacy of their product reviews, that is why Intel should NOT do this kind of stuff. Make the better product and let it shine. It worked with Core 2. In this case (IGPs), AMD does have the better product and Intel is trying to hide that fact, and is doing so rather blatently.

Is this illegal? No. But it does however attack the foundation of something I love; the ability to benchmark and compare computer hardware objectively and consistently.
October 13, 2009 3:44:56 PM

Interesting how some people agree that doing this with GPU optimizations is a bad thing and is even "cheating".

But then they maintain that doing the same with CPU optimizations is acceptable.

And this is not "biased".


TechnologyCoordinator said:
Is.

Intel IS cheating.



Just like "TC are again ranting about the word is."
October 13, 2009 3:47:24 PM

keithlm said:
Interesting how some people agree that doing this with GPU optimizations is a bad thing and is even "cheating".

But then they maintain that doing the same with CPU optimizations is acceptable.

And this is not "biased".



Interesting how when someone finds common ground with a group of people he usually disagrees with he's attacked for not blindly agreeing with all the other points the group has tried to make in the past.
a c 114 à CPUs
October 13, 2009 3:47:41 PM

Well ...

If yah ain't cheating, yah ain't trying ;) 


I hope this isn't a return to the bad ol' days when you couldn't trust any bench. What comes to mind is the old Diamond cheat where they would drop pixels to appear faster on a screen 'refresh'




October 13, 2009 3:49:36 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Interesting how when someone finds common ground with a group of people he usually disagrees with he's attacked for not blindly agreeing with all the other points the group has tried to make in the past.


They are both wrong or they are both not wrong.

October 13, 2009 3:52:42 PM

keithlm said:
They are both wrong or they are both not wrong.


You're not comparing apples to apples. The situations are different.


Show me some solid evidence. Here, I'll start you off:

http://arstechnica.com/hardware/reviews/2008/07/atom-na...


However, if the above link implicates Intel of "cheating", it also implicates AMD, so I'm sure you'll either reject it or somehow say that AMD is innocent and Intel isn't.
a c 172 à CPUs
a b å Intel
October 13, 2009 3:56:37 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Is.

Intel IS cheating.

I suspect that JennyH is European. Common English usage there is to use a plural verb form with companies.
October 13, 2009 3:59:40 PM

jsc said:
I suspect that JennyH is European. Common English usage there is to use a plural verb form with companies.


But their Windows OSes don't come with browsers, how could they ever get onto the internet? (<--lame joke)


I also found that saying "Intel are cheating\evil\monopoly\bk\copying\evil\very evil" is common among AMD fanboys.
October 13, 2009 4:00:42 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
You're not comparing apples to apples. The situations are different.


Show me some solid evidence. Here, I'll start you off:

http://arstechnica.com/hardware/reviews/2008/07/atom-na...


However, if the above link implicates Intel of "cheating", it also implicates AMD, so I'm sure you'll either reject it or somehow say that AMD is innocent and Intel isn't.


Nothing new here.

We already knew that using the CPUID to decide which optimization pathways to allow is not entirely honest. What you posted only confirms that even more. (Thanks for the support!)
October 13, 2009 4:06:20 PM

keithlm said:
Nothing new here.

We already knew that using the CPUID to decide which optimization pathways to allow is not entirely honest. What you posted only confirms that even more. (Thanks for the support!)


So you're saying that AMD ARE CHEATING!?!?!?!?!?

OMG!!!
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2009 4:07:16 PM

Quote:
But their Windows OSes don't come with browsers, how could they ever get onto the internet? (<--lame joke)


Actually I lol'd :D 
October 13, 2009 4:23:38 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
So you're saying that AMD ARE CHEATING!?!?!?!?!?

OMG!!!


Your attempt at sarcasm doesn't diminish that truth.

The brand should not be used decide what optimization to use when the ability to ask the hardware directly what optimization can be used is available. This is true of video cards as well as processors.


October 13, 2009 4:31:17 PM

keithlm said:
Your attempt at sarcasm doesn't diminish that truth.

The brand should not be used decide what optimization to use when the ability to ask the hardware directly what optimization can be used is available. This is true of video cards as well as processors.


It wasn't sarcasm, it was mockery!

But in THIS CASE where PCMark 2005 changes results based on CPUID, I agree with you. However, it seems to more of an issue with the benchmark than with AMD and Intel (from my somewhat limited understanding of the situation).

However, the original topic is 100% pure Intel's fault.
October 13, 2009 4:51:10 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
It wasn't sarcasm, it was mockery!


Oh... I see. TC are mocking peoples. (AMD is more popular than Intel in many foreign countries. So it is probable that you are seeing posts from people that don't use English as their native language. Either way we know it is one of your pet peeves.)

And the article you keep linking claims that Futuremark might have questionable quality in their code and created 3 "paths" for code optimization. What they don't hypothesize is the much more likely chance that the optimization paths were probably not discretely coded but were left to the compiler to decide.

Either way the practice raises the question of ethics when it is either done or used by a company that pretends to offer professional benchmarking software to allow unbiased benchmark comparisons.
a c 127 à CPUs
October 15, 2009 8:17:17 AM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
So you're saying that AMD ARE CHEATING!?!?!?!?!?

OMG!!!


TC, give up. Its keith. Hes not exactally open minded when it comes to this thing as shown in the past and its pretty much AMD is perfect, Intel is evil.

Quote:
Would you expect anything else from shady Intel?
How many lawsuits are out there against Intel? Can you even count them? How many against AMD? Right.

There motto is steal the technology from someone else, implement it into the mainstream with all their engineering resources, make billions and pay a measly fine.
Works for them.


The smaller the company, the easier it is to hide cheating/corruption or for people to look past their mistakes. Look how many people forgot about Hector and his ability to sit on K8 while Intel created Core 2 to take back the performance crown.

BTW, you realize that AMD bougth DEC-Alpha for their IMC and IBM assisted them with x86-64 and the HTT, right? Wasn't exactally their ideas. But thats the way the market works. Most people have an idea and sell it to a larger company to retire nicely. And DEC_Alpha was not the first with a IMC. Many other companies before them had made them, even Intel did. but there was a before Intel as well. its just that since they don't exist they get no credit or memory.

Either way, its a possibility that the drivers itself are specifically coded for LRB. Its kinda funny how people are saying Intel is cheating when a LRB GPU gves a better performance boost with a Intel CPU but when AMDs platform is involved and gives better performance in CrossFire when a AMD CPU and chipset are involved, people don't get up in arms. or did people forget about that?

I don't see the problem with it since a companies goal is to sell its products, hence why AMD would also make those optimizations for ATI GPUs with AMD CPUs.

Also most of the benchmark games are the ones that are heavy in pixel and vertex shaders hence why they are used to benchmark new CPUs and GPUs since they stress both to the limits. Crysis is very GPU bound and even Left 4 Dead is very CPU bound. Both games utilize pixel shaders and vertex shaders a lot but one uses a CPU more and the other uses a GPU more. If a older game doesn't need to stress anything that much (like TCs Sim City 4) then the optimizations wont be needed. But future games will be.

This is much like how newer drivers tend to only optimize performance for the newest set of GPUs and maybe one gen behind and as well the newest and most popular titles. When was the last time you saw your drivers giving a performance boost all around unless it was for a just new card? I see it all the time for the newest GPU from ATI. but thats life. In fact my HD2900 I used to have stopped getting performance upgrades about 10 drivers ago. Kinda sad but meh.

So in the endoptimizing for your hardware, not a big deal. Everyone does it. I am sure that nVidia does it as does AMD. We just don't hear about it as much since well, Intel is evil and all.

Also here is the thread I read about AMD optimizing their GPUs for their platform for Crossfire setups:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/265155-28-multi-card-...

Quote:
Theres starting to appear hints that the upcoming new drivers from ATI will benefit AMD cpus in crossfire much more than the i7s.
Now, this could be a platform thing. Or, it could be a gfx card wall, and i7 wont benefit like P2 will, which may have more cards hitting the gpu limitations.
Look for Cat 9.8s, some amazing claims are being leaked, up to 50% imrovements on AMD based HW, less with Intel


As I said, don't get pissed at one company and not the other.
October 15, 2009 10:30:24 AM

This wouldnt even be needed except for the poor IGPs Intel has.
Lets put it this way, they arent any "better" than anyone else.
The proposed increase isnt happening as promised. Thier IGPs were supposed to be competitive now, and its not happening.
This could be a bad omen for the future, and it doesnt do anyone any good but Intel, and if thats OK with people, then I guess every company should do this type of thing, and we'll never have anything really decent, when we can alter things and make claims, and only go half way there.
Theres alot of games out there that can make use of this, again, because of their poor IGPs, otherwise, it wouldnt be needed at all.
Now, if ATI or nVidia only made decent drivers for certain games, thatd be OK too, right?
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2009 11:05:00 AM

I still don't think this is cheating because the consumer is losing nothing. They are either gaining performance or not gaining performance, but they are not losing it or losing IQ. Graphics driver optimisations sometimes result in a loss of IQ in some way. As I said in the other thread where this was brought up: Misleading? Yes. Cheating? I don't think so.
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2009 12:42:03 PM

It is cheating Random and I'll tell you why. For an intel IGP to score higher in Vantage or any benchmark than any ATI igp is a joke. There is a reason why the Vantage executable shouldn't be targetted for optimisations, and that reason is what is the point if nvidia and ati start doing that?

Is it ok for intel to break a very clear rule that futuremark made to prevent this? It is supposed to be a non-biased benchmark, yet some intel igp's are scoring higher than ati's, even though in real games the intels aren't even half as good.

You say the consumer is losing nothing, what if the consumer is multitasking and losing cpu power while running a game? Now what if that same user had seen the multitasking performance of this intel and made their purchasing decision based on that, only to find that the cpu was being offloaded to while playing *some* games and not the ones that they saw while being benched.

Yes, it's cheating.

"Cheating is an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition. Cheating characteristically is employed to create an unfair advantage, usually in one's own interest, and often at the expense of others, [1] Cheating implies the breaking of rules."

If futuremark set rules for their software, and intel break those rules, they are cheating.
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2009 1:59:48 PM

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15984/65/

Seriously now, do intel even have a graphics department? Assuming they do, they are even more incompetent than Nvidia are right now. Rebranding GMA is the ultimate graphic fail, it really is.
October 15, 2009 2:57:48 PM

jimmysmitty said:
TC, give up. Its keith.
Hes not exactally open minded when it comes to this thing as shown in the past and its pretty much AMD is perfect, Intel is evil.


Actually It has not nothing to do with "Intel are evil" and everything to do with common sense. Something severely lacking in Intel fanboys recently. Well okay... EVER. But that's okay, we will continue to make fun of Intel fans every time you play your fanboy games and pretend to be "unbiased".

This is just another example of Intel fanboys changing their marching orders.

Similar to when certain fanboys claimed that clock-per-clock comparisons are more important than comparing chips in the same price range and then later changing that opinion with Turbo-Boost; now clock-per-clock comparisons are not important whatsoever.

Or perhaps when the same people that adamantly claimed that DDR2-800 was acceptable to benchmark because going to DDR2-1066 only made a difference in a few applications suddenly getting all bent out of shape when the fastest available DDR3 memory is NOT used in a benchmark that they cared about.

So it is not "Intel are evil". When Intel fanboys change the rules when it doesn't paint their "oh-so-godly" chips in the light that they prefer the word is not "evil" it is "pathetic". But then that is starting to happen so much that it no longer really a notable event.
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2009 3:06:18 PM

jennyh said:
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15984/65/

Seriously now, do intel even have a graphics department? Assuming they do, they are even more incompetent than Nvidia are right now. Rebranding GMA is the ultimate graphic fail, it really is.


Hey, can't you remember when Nvidia used to cheat at 3dMark? Made the whole benchie pointless. Might just be better to be honest with your score like S3:



That's why we use real benchies.

Too bad GMA graphics suck at real world gaming... except in solitaire.

a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
October 15, 2009 5:52:38 PM

randomizer said:
I still don't think this is cheating because the consumer is losing nothing.
I disagree, because consumers often make buying decisions based on benchmarks and if those benchmarks aren't representative of what the actual performance will be compared to other cards then it's equivalent to misrepresenting their product. There are laws against misrepresentation, and for good reason.

While I think the practice is wrong, it certainly doesn't surprise me that it goes on. It's the nature of the business. What does surprise me is that Intel would apparently be so foolish as to do this based on nothing more than the program name. That seems incredibly amateurish to me.
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2009 11:06:22 PM

sminlal said:
I disagree, because consumers often make buying decisions based on benchmarks and if those benchmarks aren't representative of what the actual performance will be compared to other cards then it's equivalent to misrepresenting their product. There are laws against misrepresentation, and for good reason.

Any benchmarks used for marketing purposes should be taken with salt or ignored. If the consumer does not know that marketing = BS then that's their problem. If every company that misrepresented their product went to court we'd need to turn a whole country into a courtroom.
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2009 11:09:16 PM

And the alternative is what? We let them do whatever they want and then everybody would at least know that nothing can be trusted?

What a sad way to run a business, or anything. If you aren't against this sort of behaviour, you're just as bad as those doing it imo.
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2009 11:13:56 PM

I am not against it because it doesn't matter to me. I don't care if Intel offloaded the work to the cloud without the consumer's knowledge. I only care if it affects me, and I don't use Intel's IGP :D  Now video driver optimisations (or FLOPtimisations as TGGA would say) from AMD and NVIDIA are something I am against, because I want performance without having to suffer IQ loss to get it.

There is no alternative. You can't stop marketing.
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2009 11:24:53 PM

Bored with all these Intel vs AMD conversations - it dont get anywhere and we all know the answer wether we like it or not.


Lets talk shop and chat about anything other than whos good, whos evil, whos fast, whos slow, whos dearest, whos cheapest


does me head in.
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2009 11:25:50 PM

What do you expect on a cpu forum hellboy? :p 
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2009 11:28:07 PM

jennyh said:
What do you expect on a cpu forum hellboy? :p 



something more than going over and over and over again the same conversations
a c 127 à CPUs
October 16, 2009 5:34:34 AM

keithlm said:
Actually It has not nothing to do with "Intel are evil" and everything to do with common sense. Something severely lacking in Intel fanboys recently. Well okay... EVER. But that's okay, we will continue to make fun of Intel fans every time you play your fanboy games and pretend to be "unbiased".

This is just another example of Intel fanboys changing their marching orders.

Similar to when certain fanboys claimed that clock-per-clock comparisons are more important than comparing chips in the same price range and then later changing that opinion with Turbo-Boost; now clock-per-clock comparisons are not important whatsoever.

Or perhaps when the same people that adamantly claimed that DDR2-800 was acceptable to benchmark because going to DDR2-1066 only made a difference in a few applications suddenly getting all bent out of shape when the fastest available DDR3 memory is NOT used in a benchmark that they cared about.

So it is not "Intel are evil". When Intel fanboys change the rules when it doesn't paint their "oh-so-godly" chips in the light that they prefer the word is not "evil" it is "pathetic". But then that is starting to happen so much that it no longer really a notable event.


Yep. I forget that anyone who is not against Intel is a Intel fanboy these days. And that makes them idiots.

Well sorry to burst your bubble but when one company does one thing (the smaller one) no one gets up in arms about it but the bigger one does it and they are cheating or monopolizing.

Lets look at it this way:

Microsoft is hit by the EU for being a monopoly and not giving people choice of a browser and the EU will go after WMP next. Apple has a completely closed source software/hardware system and even has a video codec that can only be played on their video player (Quicktime). Yet the EU does nothing.....

Hmmmm.....

So AMD does optimizations to the Catalyst drivers that can deliver a nice 50% performance boost when in Crossfire but only when a AMD CPU and chipset are present. Sure. Thats ok. Intel does the same thing, the drivers give LRB a nice boost in certain games that are heavy in certain areas when a Intel CPU and chipset are present. Thats cheating. Huh. Seems kinda one sided to me.

Oh and it was actually AMD who started the clock per clock comparisons back in the Athlon 64 days. Then the clock per watt in the Athlon X2 days. But sure, use it when intel has the upper hand and its just another way for Intel to get the win, right?

The differnece between DDR2-800 and DDR2-1066 is minimal especially when Intel CPUs can only use what the FSB is set to. The only real use for DDR2-1066 is n OCing since it will have higher headroom. But using the slowest DDR3 vs decent DDR2 is not right since it takes DDR3-1600 to match DDR2-800. And you should know that.

But you are right. It is patheti when people think one companys doings are wrong but when the other does the same they don't care.

So in short: AMD optimized their drivers to perform better on their hardware. Intel did the same thing. That means Intel is not cheating or AMD is cheating just as much as Intel is.

amdfangirl said:
Hey, can't you remember when Nvidia used to cheat at 3dMark? Made the whole benchie pointless. Might just be better to be honest with your score like S3:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3265/3255712631_f82a8f8139_o.jpg

That's why we use real benchies.

Too bad GMA graphics suck at real world gaming... except in solitaire.


I remember that. The nVidia GeForce 6 series. it would lower the actual image quality to win. but disable that and ATI pounded them.

Hellboy said:
something more than going over and over and over again the same conversations


It wont happen. I try not to but sometimes its hard not to. But it will always be.

I often think of just never coming to a hardware forum again. The amount of bashing on both sides gets idiotic.
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 5:41:29 AM

You have no idea what goes on my art forum.

We have the worst flame threads with Crayola fanbois and Derwent fanbois...

The amount of bashing that goes on...

One of them even threatened to examine the molecular composition of the colouring pencil leads.
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 10:29:00 AM

amdfangirl said:
You have no idea what goes on my art forum.

We have the worst flame threads with Crayola fanbois and Derwent fanbois...

The amount of bashing that goes on...

One of them even threatened to examine the molecular composition of the colouring pencil leads.

+1

Very enough for the AMD craps from the OP and "bboynatura​l"!

Fan boys can't do anything but keep complimenting their favorite brand and insulting the others.

It helps absolutely nothing in the forum and is completely waste of our time.
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 11:11:28 AM

Thanks for the constructive post.
October 16, 2009 11:21:49 AM

jennyh said:
Remember that next time you are thinking about buying anything with intel inside.

Just another AMDfanboy that hate Intel for no reason.
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 11:27:23 AM

michaelmk86 said:
Just another AMDfanboy that hate Intel for no reason.

You haven't been around much have you? Jenny has eleventy billion reasons why she hates Intel ;) 
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 11:28:35 AM

michaelmk86 said:
Just another AMDfanboy that hate Intel for no reason.

Yeah!

There's no reason to hate Intel now, as they are offering us the bargain i5 which is superior to AMD Phenom II in performance, power and value.
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 11:43:58 AM

Hatred for a company is irrational anyway. It's not like all the other companies are out to make you feel good. They just want your wallet.
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 11:47:51 AM

randomizer said:
Hatred for a company is irrational anyway. It's not like all the other companies are out to make you feel good. They just want your wallet.

WOW, are you summarizing here?

It's a great summary.
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 12:05:54 PM

andy5174 said:
Yeah!

There's no reason to hate Intel now, as they are offering us the bargain i5 which is superior to AMD Phenom II in performance, power and value.


I agree with you. No reason to hate Intel.

I don't agree that the Phenom II isn't good value tho.

It's more directed to budget markets.

Phenom II motherboards are much cheaper. Not to mention so are the CPUs.
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 12:14:41 PM

Come on! An OK i5 m/b is not that expensive. In addition, i5 is significantly better in performance with minimal price gain.

Besides, I didn't say that Phenom II is not a good buy. I was just saying that it is not as good as i5 considering the cost-performance ratio. That's my own opinion though.
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 12:16:03 PM

Let's not lose sight of the fact that this thread is not about i5 vs Phenom II, or AMD vs Intel for that matter.
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 12:17:00 PM

Jeez ... I posted about this in the Intel vs Amd sticky up the top.

Then jenny steals my thunder posted on: 10-13-2009 at 09:14:40 AM |

Soulless wench ...

Shame on you.

heh heh
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 12:19:54 PM

Reynod said:
Jeez ... I posted about this in the Intel vs Amd sticky up the top.

Then jenny steals my thunder posted on: 10-13-2009 at 09:14:40 AM |

Soulless wench ...

Shame on you.

heh heh

ROFL! :D 
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 12:28:55 PM

Like I could make her feel guilt eh?

Probably worked for the marketing department at the Sirious Cybernetics Corporation before taking a job at AMD.

!