Published on 5th July 2011 by
Originally Posted by wuyanxucall me cynical, but i thought the reason AMD walked out was due to their new processor was unable to compete.
Originally Posted by SlowMotionSuicideQuote:Originally Posted by wuyanxucall me cynical, but i thought the reason AMD walked out was due to their new processor was unable to compete.
My thoughts exactly. AMD can't compete on pure CPU performance with Intel so instead they go blowing out all the bells and whistles how GPGPU computing is everything.
Doesn't bode well for Bulldozer methinks :-(
Originally Posted by NexxoPeople using the word 'gay' as a negative attribute are gay. :p
Originally Posted by BauulI personally think concentrating on CPU benchmarks is a mistake in itself. In my experience at work, a decent amount of fast RAM and a speedy harddrive is by far and away the most important part of getting a computer to run quickly.
We do quite typical office jobs (any high-end application is streamed via Citrix), and what I hear my staff complain about most are things like:
1) My computer takes too long to boot up
2) Opening *insert MS Office app* takes too long
3) My computer slows down when I have too much open
Above something quite simple, the CPU has pretty much no effect on any of the above.
Originally Posted by DbDThis is the same benchmark that Intel has had the same say in for many years. It's one that AMD championed for much of that time - making it the standard for government purchasing orders in America. Why did they do that? - because the A64 was a great cpu, it did well in BABCO and hence AMD could win some deals over Intel despite it being the smaller player.
So why are now are they really pulling out?
The strong suspicion is because bulldozer is weak, because if those same government dept's that keep using BABCO AMD will sell nothing. Hence it's not really to do with break down, or gpu compute or any of that it's to do with selling bulldozer. AMD need to minimise use of BABCO for competitive benchmarks of Xeon/SB vs bulldozer. It's all smoke, mirrors and marketing.
Originally Posted by cyrilthefishHave to agree here.
Out of the market now, but i could see cheap 32gb ssds keeping aging corporate pcs going for way past their usual working lifespan, especially if coupled with a ram upgrade later on. It only really needs to hold the OS and core apps locally, anything else can sit on a server.
Originally Posted by AdnoctumAMD never championed SYSMARK. Anyone can join BAPCo. You just need to stump up the cash and you get a vote. AMD joined because at the time it was a well known Intel front organisation and they thought that by being a voting member they could influence development of a more representative benchmark.
Stupid AMD! Should have known that the reigning champion in influence peddling and its coterie of self-interested tools couldn't be swayed in making a fairer benchmark that would show the real value of 80% of their products.
The problem with SYSMARK is that it isn't being used to benchmark systems for office (or government) use, it is being used as a benchmark for marketing to average users, of which the "real world tasks" aren't as representative.
The issue is also not because the AMD CPUs are slower, and that the GPU isn't tested is only one of the problems. Another is the hidden weighting SYSMARK uses. The scores of some benchmarks are weighted higher than others.
For example, for each equally utilised (by the mythical "average" user) task:
* Neutral BM returns the score: Intel 2000fps and 5 weighting points with AMD 1800fps and 4.5 weighting points (or 0.5 points per 200fps),
* Intel-favoured BM returns the score: Intel 150sec and 10 weighting points with AMD 170sec and 6 weighting points (or 200 points - x seconds /5),
* GPU-favoured BM returns the score: Intel 150 units and 1 weighting point with AMD 300 units and 2 weighting points (or 0.1 points * x units/15),
Final score: (x weighting points * 10.5) Intel with 168 SYSMARKs and AMD with 131.25 SYSMARKs.
Does the AMD final score accurately represent the actual results of the benchmarks? In the neutral BM the performances are quite close. In the Intel-favoured BM, the results are close as well (20sec isn't much), but knowing Intel CPUs do well in this BM the weighting is inflated. In the GPU-favoured BM the AMD completed twice as many units, meaning twice the "performance", but the BM is weighted far lower. Remember that there is the assumption that these are three tasks of equal utility to the "average user". SYSMARK assigns greater importance to BMs that suit Intel features and diminishes AMD's. It is all in how the calculations are done.
We learnt about SYSMARK's weighting biases because the scores for each task used to be written to a file so a final score could be totalled. Someone found out that the file could be opened in Notepad and the weighting given to each task was there for all to see. BMs that favoured Intel CPUs were given higher importance in the final score, meaning that the SYSMARK score of a P4 was much closer to that of a A64 than the individual BM scores would indicate.
Once this dirty little BAPCo secret came out, the next version of SYSMARK released had started encrypting the storage file so the assigned weighting could no longer be scrutinised.
If this was just AMD I might agree with the suspicions about AMD's motives, but Nvidia and Via have left for similar reasons, and with the amount of GPGPU processing increasing this is going make this hardware capability more important. This now leaves Intel and Seagate as the ONLY hardware manufacturers left, all the others being system builders who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.
Quite frankly SYSMARK is a bit pointless now, seeing as the system builders now have the choice of Intel Processor A or Intel Processor B to go with Intel Basic Chipset A (or Intel Mainstream Chipset B if they want to add $200 to system retail price) and Intel Wireless Controller C and Intel Peripheral Controller L. An Intel "Hardware Deccelerator" X that can do Flash and 1080p now comes for free, so bonus!
Originally Posted by SnipsI've found the answer, it was right in front of us all the time.
If you use SYSMARK and you're an AMD fanboi, just wear tinfoil on your head. (Don't tell anyone but it gives AMD better scores!)
Originally Posted by TulatinUnfortunately, it's now less funny than "lolcats".
Originally Posted by Tulatin"But can it run Crysis?"
Congratulations, you're responsible for making the 4,877,921,204th post containing this joke. Unfortunately, it's now less funny than "lolcats". You could have at least wasted your comment by partaking in Internet tradition, spewing "First!" meaninglessly into the world.
If only we could have a time when people contribute meaningful discussion to articles, perhaps wondering if Intel influences Bapco's habit of only focusing on a tiny sliver of the real world?
You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.
20th February 2017
17th February 2017
16th February 2017
© Copyright bit-tech