AMD, VIA and Nvidia Quit BAPCO over Sysmark 2012

http://semiaccurate.com/2011/06/20/n...-sysmark-2012/

Even before this happened there always mumblings about the usefulness of the software, and reliability of the results. However, it seems that :banana::banana::banana::banana: has finally hit the fan and even Nvidia is now quitting BAPCO. From Intel fanboys'/ fangirls' point of view, AMD and VIA are just throwing a hissy and a fit, but how do you really explain Nvidia's move out of the consortium? True, Jen Hsen is known for throwing tantrums and walking on stage with a product with wooden screws, but even then this still merits some thought.

So, it turns into an Intelmark from 2012 onward ? nice confirmation then, no more masquarade. :D

back a couple years ago when via tried pushing back to desktops, there were reviews using sysmark and since via lets u change the cpuid string, u get this awesome set of results that you get a significant gain by changing the name to intel.

even with things like super pi and pcmark give u bonus points for having a chip named intel but nothign like sysmark

I get that people left, for the reason that if an individual downloaded Sysmark it was highly skewed.

But as far as the other vendors go, they did (iirc) have access to the Sysmark source and could have theoretically used a compiler that wasn't Intels to make it more of a fair competition, no?

Again, realistically leaving was probably the better move for their bottom line... I'm just surprised I didn't see anyone even attempt to make the comparisons fair earlier, given how long they have been in on this. On day 1 when my system wasn't showing up like it should have I would have had a team assigned to look into the issue, and within 90 days I'd have either gotten a new compiler and forced it in or quit myself.

i dont think that they would have been allowed to recompile it with better settings or a different one, and if they could they diffidently could not make it public. from what i understand its like futuremark's stuff were any1 can see the source code but u have to go there and you cannot copy or do anything other than look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tifosi

http://semiaccurate.com/2011/06/20/n...-sysmark-2012/

Even before this happened there always mumblings about the usefulness of the software, and reliability of the results. However, it seems that :banana::banana::banana::banana: has finally hit the fan and even Nvidia is now quitting BAPCO. From Intel fanboys'/ fangirls' point of view, AMD and VIA are just throwing a hissy and a fit, but how do you really explain Nvidia's move out of the consortium? True, Jen Hsen is known for throwing tantrums and walking on stage with a product with wooden screws, but even then this still merits some thought.

---

I know that AMD fanboys would rather believe in any conspiracy theory (with aliens involved) then accept the fact that Intel could be faster then AMD... But common, any other benchmark (real life or not) shows pretty much the same.
Also I would take this article with a grain of salt and would wait for some official info. After all that was Charly who named Fermy "broken and unfixable". I don't remember the last time he was right about something.

Have you allready seen an AMD fanboy claiming the PhenomII was faster of Intel CPU ? I think the last CPU where it was possible was with A64 single, dual core vs Pentium4 and The fiasco of the 1st Intel dualcore .. This said, i don't know why you call against AMD, when Nvidia and VIA have been extremely virrulent against Bapco ( specially Nvidia, who was absolutely not accept how the gpu was tested ).. and they have all leave at the same time BAPCO group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lanek

Have you allready seen an AMD fanboy claiming the PhenomII was faster of Intel CPU ? I think the last CPU where it was possible was with A64 single, dual core vs Pentium4 and The fiasco of the 1st Intel dualcore .. This said, i don't know why you call against AMD, when Nvidia and VIA have been extremely virrulent against Bapco ( specially Nvidia, who was absolutely not accept how the gpu was tested ).. and they have all leave at the same time BAPCO group.

---

You are not an AMD fanboy then, :P Yes AMD fanboys do claim that Phenom II is faster than i7 in the applications *they* run and Intel has just paid reviewers and application creators for unfair advantage in the scores.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebanik

You are not an AMD fanboy then, :P Yes AMD fanboys do claim that Phenom II is faster than i7 in the applications *they* run and Intel has just paid reviewers and application creators for unfair advantage in the scores.....

---

I dont know anyone on this forum that claims that...and I am probably the most active member in the AMD forum.
We can claim faster in CB10, at least over Lynnfield and Bloomfield...but I've seen NOBODY claiming Intel pays review sites or things like that.

Why don't you make things up somewhere else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serra

I get that people left, for the reason that if an individual downloaded Sysmark it was highly skewed.

But as far as the other vendors go, they did (iirc) have access to the Sysmark source and could have theoretically used a compiler that wasn't Intels to make it more of a fair competition, no?

Again, realistically leaving was probably the better move for their bottom line... I'm just surprised I didn't see anyone even attempt to make the comparisons fair earlier, given how long they have been in on this. On day 1 when my system wasn't showing up like it should have I would have had a team assigned to look into the issue, and within 90 days I'd have either gotten a new compiler and forced it in or quit myself.

---

So ... we need to run 3 different Sysmarks for 3 different systems? That does not sound like it could provide information that is remotely useful for comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebanik

You are not an AMD fanboy then, :P Yes AMD fanboys do claim that Phenom II is faster than i7 in the applications *they* run and Intel has just paid reviewers and application creators for unfair advantage in the scores.....

---

It's a well known anecdote from Anand, XS, and other websites that AMD traditionally has the smoother 'feel'. I'll just leave it at that. I wouldn't know, I've been running intel for years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegras

It's a well known anecdote from Anand, XS, and other websites that AMD traditionally has the smoother 'feel'. I'll just leave it at that. I wouldn't know, I've been running intel for years.

---

And during the netburst era people often claimed the same for Intel chips. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrMojoZ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegras

It's a well known anecdote from Anand, XS, and other websites that AMD traditionally has the smoother 'feel'. I'll just leave it at that. I wouldn't know, I've been running intel for years.

---

And during the netburst era people often claimed the same for Intel chips. ;)

---

I hate to spur on what will turn into a big argument, but I would just like to say that although I really do like AMD processors because of the price to performance ratio they have been having lately, back when I first had a Pentium 4 and then moved to an Athlon 64 since it was faster, I thought the entire first 2 days of using my new Athlon 64 computer that my older Pentium 4 felt much smoother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrMojoZ

And during the netburst era people often claimed the same for Intel chips. ;)

---

I dunno I'm working on someone's PC that is an old P4 right now (yes at 12:45 in the morning) and it is hardly what I'd call a smooth running machine. More like a POC if you ask me :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrMojoZ

And during the netburst era people often claimed the same for Intel chips. ;)

---

Really? My experience with P4 has been nothing but bad. But anyways .. no more anecdotes. heh.

haha and i felt switching from my socket 939 oc'd opty 165 to a core 2 duo e6600 , lost some of the smoothness i was feeling with a64.
but once i got to a q650 and ddr3 it was a bit better.

i could definitely feel the difference between imc and not.

Me thinks HDD and OS have everything to do with it.

My second rig with Athlon II X2 210e @ 3.1 Ghz runs a hell of a lot smoother with its X25-V and Ubuntu than my 1100T @ 4.2 Ghz (what I was recently running) with RAID 0 WD Blacks and Win Vista.

The last I checked, a dual core Intel 2nd gen Core I3 was defeating a six-core Phenom II in Civilization 5:

Quote:

---

We're running at 1680 x 1050 with all quality settings set to high. For this test we're using a brand new testbed with 8GB of memory and a GeForce GTX 580.

---

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4083/35057.png

Say what you like, with the compilers optimized for SSE 4.x, Intel chips will be pwning AMD for a while longer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mockingbird

The last I checked, a dual core Intel 2nd gen Core I3 was defeating a six-core Phenom II in Civilization 5:

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4083/35057.png

Say what you like, with the compilers optimized for SSE 4.x, Intel chips will be pwning AMD for a while longer.

---

Yeah a test limited to one cpu. There is nothing new about that. Nobody is denying that Intel has the better architecture, but that doesn't change the thing that BAPCO is biased towards one company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flyck

Yeah a test limited to one cpu. There is nothing new about that. Nobody is denying that Intel has the better architecture, but that doesn't change the thing that BAPCO is biased towards one company.

---

i would not say that, intel is better at single threaded and with amd u can make a cheap large array, and amd is better per cpu for hyperV/vmware right now.


the main problem with system mark is that for years u get a much better score by changing the cpus name to make it look like an intel, no matter how u feel about what is better or if u think amd is a joke like alot of people, once u give bonus points or make it work better on one platform by its nature of being made by one company its wrong.

cmon it is offtopic,

thread is closed

I wonder who gives a crap about sysmark anyway nowadays... to me its a checkbox test just like 3dmark for gpus, tells you only very little about how a cpu/gpu performs in every day usage. Real apps/games is where it is.
Most of the reviewers don't even use it anymore, the only one who do, what i remember out of my head, is anand and xbit, but they uses the 2007 version which nowadays is just obsolet... and I rather look at the single app benches for that.

If Bapco would go bankrupt tomorrow noone would give a :banana::banana::banana::banana:, because nothing of value was lost.

sysmark is sh*t benchmark. But unfortunately is it "good comparsion benchmark" for OEM configuration etc. (for companys or people, they know nothing about real performance of PC configuration)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

I wonder who gives a crap about sysmark anyway nowadays... to me its a checkbox test just like 3dmark for gpus, tells you only very little about how a cpu/gpu performs in every day usage. Real apps/games is where it is.
Most of the reviewers don't even use it anymore, the only one who do, what i remember out of my head, is anand and xbit, but they uses the 2007 version which nowadays is just obsolet... and I rather look at the single app benches for that.

If Bapco would go bankrupt tomorrow noone would give a :banana::banana::banana::banana:, because nothing of value was lost.

---

The problem is that OEM and public tenders tend to use Sysmark, so you can imagine the outcome for Intel/AMD/VIA/Nvidia.

Does it represent real world performance? Nope!

Will Intel gain a lot of business opportunities by promoting Sysmark even further? Yup!

Is it fair practise? You be the judge ... :)

http://www.vanshardware.com/reviews/...hlonXP2600.htm

Wonder why the guys at the OEMs claimed Intel to be faster during the Athlon - Athlon 64 eras.