ZDNet Says AMD Posts Blatantly Deceptive Benchmark 180
Glasswire writes "George Ou, writing in ZDNet's Real World IT blog, accuses AMD of comparing processors the company will not be shipping for months (2.6GHz Barcelona quad core) with older Intel Xeon quad cores rather than currently shipping ones which would beat the (hypothetical) score AMD claims for the future Barcelona. I guess while even the much slower 2.0GHz Barcelona is due soon AMD didn't think results from the 2.0 would look good enough — even against the slower Xeons they picked. Maybe the right comparison should be either best cpu against best cpu — or compare ones at the same price — and only shipped products."
This is surprising? (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, But Ou Loudly Beat's Intel's Drum (Score:2, Informative)
That being said, yes, these are vendor benches, which we all know are a scam. At the same time, the anti-AMD guy shouldn't be blowing the whistle and crying 'foul'; it makes him look like a whiner.
Re:Who trusts a vendor's benchmarks anyway? (Score:2, Informative)
The skewed numbers for Intel's chip are also because the chart for Intel was compiled with different settings (and possibly a different compiler version altogether.) This information all comes from the comments, so while not verified, they also weren't really disputed in the comments either.
Re:I choose AMD for the price... (Score:2, Informative)
Let's all scream FIRE! (Score:5, Informative)
The graphs are from a several months old marketing promo. Suddenly there's really no story.
Claim: AMD listed a product they don't intend to release.
Truth: AMD listed a product they intended to release at the time but subsequently withdrew.
Claim: AMD deliberately used out of date Intel scores.
Truth: AMD used the most current Intel scores available at the time. Improved scores came from an improved compiler - which may well change AMD's scores too. Either way, it wasn't available at the time of writing.
Claim: AMD ignored the most recent Intel processor releases.
Truth: Those Intel processors weren't released at the time of writing and no benchmarks existed.
Journalistically, this is about on a par with finding footage from the 50's saying we'd all be driving flying cars by the year 2000 and boldly asserting there's clearly a government conspiracy to hide the technology from the people to protect big oil.
Bold claims are one thing. Making them on the back of badly researching where the information came from is a great way to look like an idiot.
WSJ ads are from april (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not the architecture.. (Score:3, Informative)
You mean a processor that does more and offers rock solid performance versus and overclocked rig that needs rebooting every few hours?
Parent has an odd notion of what scaling is, although technically that would be considering scaling up when the general industry trend is scaling out. My database and web servers are Opteron based for good reason, exactly the ones you specified. Seems a shame AMD not being able to keep up on the lower end of things but they really aren't challenged by Intel in the mid-range server market. Would be nice to see some larger AMD setups, like 8-way 16 core, or 16-way 32 core. Architecturally speaking if that hardware were released it would only widen the lead at the top end and Intel really has some serious problems with scaling out.
Re:I choose AMD for the price... (Score:3, Informative)
Mid to high end AMD SLI Chip sets are the same price as low to mid end intle chipsets.