Okay, I know what you're probably all thinking. Here goes another anti-AMD rant, right? Well let me start off by saying this before you turn the bias-filtering on:
I'm impressed that the AXP3200+ beat the AXP3000+. It shows that there is some life left in the AXP. I'm also completely unsurprised by the AXP3200+. Actually, that's not entirely true. I had predicted that AMD would just up the FSB to 400 and keep the clock the same or less than the AXP 3000+ to reach the 3200 label. The fact that it is a tiny bit faster instead of the same speed or slower did come as a mild surprise, a positive surprise.
And if AMD wants to hold onto tne pretty insubstantial claim that their rating system is in comparison to the T-Bird, then fine. I don't believe it for a second, but I'm not going to get upset over it.
What gets my goat is that now AMD is pushing reviewers to use custom software, undoubtedly <i>optimized</i> software, for the reviews. Not only that, but they're also pushing reviewers to use <i>very</i> specific hardware and firmware settings to bias the benchmarks even further.
How many review sites will do just what AMD tells the reviewers to do? How many review sites will bias their results just exactly as AMD tells them to? How many review sites will never even mention this biasing?
AMD can make up ludicrous PR numbers all they want. I don't care. They can call the next CPU 'Bob' for all I care. So long as I have fair benchmarks to determine the true value of a CPU, I don't give a flaming fairy fart what the rating number or what the MHz is. I care about the performance that I will get for my money. That's it.
But when AMD starts pushing reviewers to bias those benchmarks, when AMD screws with my ability to research the actual performance that I should be able to expect from my hardware, <i>that's</i> when they've gone too far. AMD has most definately crossed the line now. It's one thing to mislead customers about the actual performance of the chip based on it's name. After all, it's just a name and anyone can compensate for that easily enough with just a little bit of research. It's something else entirely to get reviewers to bias their benchmarks so that customers can't even make an educated judgement anymore.
AMD has lost major kudo points in my book. And a big thanks to THG for pointing out this new and disgusting tactic from AMD.
<font color=purple><pre><b>There are 10 types of people in this world: those who can understand binary and those who can't.</b></pre><p></font color=purple>
I'm impressed that the AXP3200+ beat the AXP3000+. It shows that there is some life left in the AXP. I'm also completely unsurprised by the AXP3200+. Actually, that's not entirely true. I had predicted that AMD would just up the FSB to 400 and keep the clock the same or less than the AXP 3000+ to reach the 3200 label. The fact that it is a tiny bit faster instead of the same speed or slower did come as a mild surprise, a positive surprise.
And if AMD wants to hold onto tne pretty insubstantial claim that their rating system is in comparison to the T-Bird, then fine. I don't believe it for a second, but I'm not going to get upset over it.
What gets my goat is that now AMD is pushing reviewers to use custom software, undoubtedly <i>optimized</i> software, for the reviews. Not only that, but they're also pushing reviewers to use <i>very</i> specific hardware and firmware settings to bias the benchmarks even further.
How many review sites will do just what AMD tells the reviewers to do? How many review sites will bias their results just exactly as AMD tells them to? How many review sites will never even mention this biasing?
AMD can make up ludicrous PR numbers all they want. I don't care. They can call the next CPU 'Bob' for all I care. So long as I have fair benchmarks to determine the true value of a CPU, I don't give a flaming fairy fart what the rating number or what the MHz is. I care about the performance that I will get for my money. That's it.
But when AMD starts pushing reviewers to bias those benchmarks, when AMD screws with my ability to research the actual performance that I should be able to expect from my hardware, <i>that's</i> when they've gone too far. AMD has most definately crossed the line now. It's one thing to mislead customers about the actual performance of the chip based on it's name. After all, it's just a name and anyone can compensate for that easily enough with just a little bit of research. It's something else entirely to get reviewers to bias their benchmarks so that customers can't even make an educated judgement anymore.
AMD has lost major kudo points in my book. And a big thanks to THG for pointing out this new and disgusting tactic from AMD.
<font color=purple><pre><b>There are 10 types of people in this world: those who can understand binary and those who can't.</b></pre><p></font color=purple>