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.

Slower but smoother :rofl:

I don't know anyone that uses pcmark.
I've used it in the past a few times, long long ago, but it never seemed to really have any relevant use, that's what sandra and everest/aida is for...

I did not know they scewed results baised of the device id's, I do know that via has a pci reg back door on many of there parts which allow you to change it.

I wonder if 3dmark does the same...

I might run a 03 pass once in a great while, but I don't bother with the newer ver's.
What erk's me is that even when you get 120fps in some of these tests, take 03 test3? for ex. (ogres and chick with a sword), the thing runs in slow mo.
Like they purposely made it run half the speed.

Look at 05 as another ex., the graphics have never been anything to write home about.
Yet the performance is so shiz, it's like wth...
Bad programming comes to mind, but these days I lean more towards that it was done on purpose.

As for superpi scewing results.
I have my doubts about that one.
Though I don't have a decent via board to try that on anymore, well that's only for the chipset, ... the cpu, hmm...
A simple re-programming of the cpu-id (it's a msr, real easy to change) would doit foir some programs but others "might" know better, I "think", I'm not actually sure...

I can test this cpu-id theory if you guys want.
I already have code that I made for the nf2 to redo the cpu-id (had a buggy bios where it would sometimes fail to program it correctly).
I would just need a cpu-id string for a intel cpu, a core i7 of some sort, but it would definitely need to be 100% exact before I'de try it.
This could turn out to be an interesting mod if it actually effects programs we use (I don't really care about pcmark to be honest).

One interesting mod back in the day, the amd socket a mobile xp's were infact mp cpu's.
If you fixed up the cpu-id, it would enable the mp instructions.
Not that it would do you any good with a single socket but it was still pretty neat, had a l33t factor toit.


Anyways if you guys want to play, put up some id strings of the intel cpu's that are worth while, the top of the line sandy or i7.
I rather not call my cpu an i3 lol ;), if you know what I mean.
If we're gonna doit, might as well doit right :).

Edit:
What's thee best corei7 or sandy out right now?
If I knew that I could look for screens for the cpu-id and it would be all done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Slower but smoother :rofl:

---

Yes, nothing weird with that. Just as GTX 480 is slower than a HD 5990, it is still smoother in many scenarios. P4 was considered smoother in windows since it had HT wich helped a bit. While Athlon XP and singlecore Athlon 64 could be stalled by bad code. Mostly unnoticeable but could be seen sometimes. The same way Phenom and Phenom II was said to give a smoother feeling than C2Q in games since Core 2 had an really old bus which could be bottlenecked from time to time, even if the C2Q had a higher average framerate. I never heard anyone claim that an i5 or i7 would be less smooth than Phenom II.

Oh I forgot to post this.
I think p4's were alright as long as they were clocked at 2.4ghz or higher.
The same could be said for athlon's but in a diff way.

P4's just sucked though at lower speeds, I've had 900mhz p3's that beat out p4's 1.8ghz's with ease, when it came to playing media.
A p4 2.4ghz will play divx, heck it'll even do a 720p h.264.
But slower then that, won't even play a darned divx file without a few ms of lag.

Athlons on the other hand, 1.4ghz is fine, it'll play divx.
To play some games though, 2.4ghz is a sweet spot, you didn't need it, but it helped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

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.

---

Well, I find it actually funny - about 10 years ago when AMD had faster processors and BARCo was biased toward Intel, AMD decided to join BARCo in order to correct BARCo's behavior. Since then no one have been complaining about Sysmark2007 (as I remember changing CPUID affected PCMark05 and not Sysmark). Now I wonder what was the AMD's reason to leave BARCo (if it indeed true). I guess every chip firm will only love benchmark where its product has superiority.
BTW, here is an interesting article about changing CPUID.
http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/vi...d-fake-p1.html

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've never really see anybody make a straight up apples to apples comparison. I've seen some people claim that in some cases the larger core count in some AMD CPUs helps in some applications. But I haven't seen anybody make the argument that AMD is faster per core or even per clock.

As for the "smoother" issue, there was some truth to that but it's largely horse crap as well. I got higher FPS consistently on a Q9650 than on a 940 BE, but lower FPS were also, well, lower. The 940 never got as many FPS but it also never plummeted, there wasn't as much fluctuation. However I always pinned the blame on the fact that nvidias 775 chipsets were problematic and finicky to say the least. I haven't had that problem with 1366.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

Well, I find it actually funny - about 10 years ago when AMD had faster processors and BARCo was biased toward Intel, AMD decided to join BARCo in order to correct BARCo's behavior. Since then no one have been complaining about Sysmark2007 (as I remember changing CPUID affected PCMark05 and not Sysmark). Now I wonder what was the AMD's reason to leave BARCo (if it indeed true). I guess every chip firm will only love benchmark where its product has superiority.
BTW, here is an interesting article about changing CPUID.
http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/vi...d-fake-p1.html

---

Very interesting link you posted :).
There could very well be an advantage in spoofing your cpu-id as an intel.
Now I just gotta look around for cpu-z shots of the top of the line intel's.
I'll look this up tonight for sure so I can get testing on it.

It would be very interesting if it was 1 sec faster or so on superpi and a bit faster on mem bandwith in aida64...
I now understand now that it is "potentially" possible.

Edit:
I think the latest i7 is the 990x extreme.
The exact strings, I believe are:
"Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU X 990 @ 3.47Ghz"
"Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU X 990 @ 3.47Ghz (ES)"

I could be off by a few spaces here and there though.
I'm gonna start work on a program and try it out to see if I can match up the name to the cpu-z shots on the net, to make sure I doit correctly, I don't want to miss a blank space or anything like that.

One more edit:

http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/5725/unledrn.th.jpg

Obviously I screwed up somehow :(.
Current code:

Code:

---


;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;; CPUID
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;; Notes
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

;"Mobile AMD Athlon(tm) MP processor", 0x00

;???
;"Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU  X 990 @ 3.47Ghz", 0x00
;"Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU  X 990 @ 3.47Ghz (ES)", 0x00

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;; Entry Ptr
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

org 0x100

jmp Init

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;; Defines
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;; Functions
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

;"Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU  X 990 @ 3.47Ghz (ES)", 0x0000

Fix_CPU_Name_String:
mov ecx, 0xC0010030        ;MSR Address
call Clear_CPU_Name_String
mov eax, "Inte"                ;MSR Data
mov edx, "l(R)"                ;MSR Data
mov ecx, 0xC0010030        ;MSR Address
wrmsr
mov eax, " Cor"                ;MSR Data
mov edx, "e(TM"                ;MSR Data
mov ecx, 0xC0010031        ;MSR Address
wrmsr
mov eax, ") i7"                ;MSR Data
mov edx, " CPU"                ;MSR Data
mov ecx, 0xC0010032        ;MSR Address
wrmsr
mov eax, "  X "                ;MSR Data
mov edx, "990 "                ;MSR Data
mov ecx, 0xC0010033        ;MSR Address
wrmsr
mov eax, "@ 3."                ;MSR Data
mov edx, "47Gh"                ;MSR Data
mov ecx, 0xC0010034        ;MSR Address
wrmsr
mov eax, "z (E"                ;MSR Data
mov edx, 0x00000000        ;MSR Data
mov dx, "S)"                ;MSR Data
mov ecx, 0xC0010035        ;MSR Address
wrmsr
clc
ret

Clear_CPU_Name_String:
mov eax, 0x00000000        ;MSR Data
mov edx, 0x00000000        ;MSR Data
wrmsr
inc cl
cmp cl, 0x36
je Ret_Function
jmp Clear_CPU_Name_String

Ret_Function:
ret

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;; Init
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Init:

call Fix_CPU_Name_String

jmp Exit

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;; Exit
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Exit:

ret

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

---

There must be a few more msr's that need modding...

@NEOAethyr: im not sure why you go about PCmark and Futuremark benchmarks. when the news is about Sysmark, or i have miss something and you had wanted make a relation between scores on them and Sysmark ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

Well, I find it actually funny - about 10 years ago when AMD had faster processors and BARCo was biased toward Intel, AMD decided to join BARCo in order to correct BARCo's behavior. Since then no one have been complaining about Sysmark2007 (as I remember changing CPUID affected PCMark05 and not Sysmark). Now I wonder what was the AMD's reason to leave BARCo (if it indeed true). I guess every chip firm will only love benchmark where its product has superiority.
BTW, here is an interesting article about changing CPUID.
http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/vi...d-fake-p1.html

---

How can you even try to spin a defence, it's futile. It is well known that intel has BAPCo in their pocket, and Bing or Google will likely produce a Million hits of evidence. Obviously you aren't going to find an intel or BAPCo confession, but what you will find is proof far beyond a reasonable doubt.

From AMD's blog:

Quote:

---

....AMD has a long history of supporting open standards; if you have any doubt just look at our support for OpenCL. And this support extends to active involvement with open industry consortia that likewise promote open standards. The beauty of open standards is that they are just that – open. Open to analysis, open to improvement and open to criticism.

AMD has for some time been a member of BAPCo, an industry organization that promotes, among other things, a benchmark known as SYSmark. In the past year or so AMD, with openness and transparency, has tried to explain why we believe this benchmark is misleading with respect to today’s commonplace applications − about a year ago I published a blog designed to explore this. If you work for a company that believes in transparency and integrity – and I do – then you have to take a stand and speak up when something is wrong.

BAPCo’s response to this blog was a threat to expel AMD from the consortium....

---

Quote:

---

...AMD decided to do what we believed was the right thing for the industry and our customers, so we continued to work within BAPCo to try to get the next-generation benchmark, SYSmark12 (“SM2012”), right. Our hope was to effect change so that it would be open, transparent and processor-neutral. We got workloads included that represent the things you and I actually do in a day (instead of 35,000 line spreadsheets!).

But the question remained: what weighting would BAPCo ultimately give to the real-world workloads − since it is this weighting that defines the actual benchmark scores.

Unfortunately, our good intentions were met with an outcome that we believe does a disservice to the industry and our customers. We weren’t able to effect positive change within BAPCo, and the resulting benchmark continues to distort workload performance and offers even less transparency to end users. Once again, BAPCo chose to ignore the opportunity to promote openness and transparency....

---

Quote:

---

...So how can AMD stay in BAPCo? Simply put, we can’t. We have resigned from BAPCo and asked that our name and logo be removed from marketing materials promoting SM2012.

Now I hear some of you asking, “Isn’t this really just about the long-running antagonism between AMD and your competitor?”

No, it’s not....

---

http://blogs.amd.com/nigel-dessau/20...1/#comment-603

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lanek

@NEOAethyr: im not sure why you go about PCmark and Futuremark benchmarks. when the news is about Sysmark, or i have miss something and you had wanted make a relation between scores on them and Sysmark ?

---

Oh my bad.
Thought pcmark was sysmark, names were similar.
Lol ^^, now I don't know which is which lol, not that it really matters...

Quote:

---

Imagine if automakers got together and started measuring the gas mileage of new cars with a cool test of their own making—one in which the cars were rolling downhill with their engines idling. Suddenly you'd have some pretty amazing claims: Why, that three-ton SUV gets 300 miles per gallon! This subcompact gets 500! In tiny print at the bottom of the window sticker you'd find a disclaimer saying that, well, um, you know, your mileage may vary

---

Quote:

---

"There's only three endings to this story," says Patrick Moorhead, a marketing vice president at AMD. "Either the industry regulates itself, or the FTC steps in and regulates us, or we get hit with a class-action lawsuit. I suggest the industry go with the first option."

---

Quote:

---

AMD is recommending computer makers adopt a new way of measuring battery life, using two states: "active time" and "resting time," similar to the way cell-phone makers describe the "talk time" and "standby time" of a phone. A Dell executive says that approach makes sense, and that the company is considering providing customers with information beyond the MM07 scores. "Customers expect the advertised battery life to reflect the way they really use the product," says Ketan Pandya, head of AMD-based products at Dell.

---

Quote:

---

AMD also points out that the president of BAPCo happens to be the head of performance benchmarking at Intel.

---

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/06/18/h...-and-type.html


From 2009:

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/...%20rant&st=cse

^caught with pants down comes to mind

Quote:

---

Imagine if automakers got together and started measuring the gas mileage of new cars with a cool test of their own making—one in which the cars were rolling downhill with their engines idling. Suddenly you'd have some pretty amazing claims: Why, that three-ton SUV gets 300 miles per gallon! This subcompact gets 500! In tiny print at the bottom of the window sticker you'd find a disclaimer saying that, well, um, you know, your mileage may vary

---

Oh god I loled at that... I think whoever wrote that whould do a reality check... its exactly like that already.

Regardless where you live in this world and what the code is called (NEDC, 10/15-Mode, FTP75), they are all faaaar of reality. The diffence is only that tihs regulations are done by goverments... so calling for the FTC wont change one step in that regard...

Also its quite funny to look at that statement and what amd is now suggesting to get there "AMD AllDay™ Power" (which is 8h+ at idle, which also doesn't refelct rl at all).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

Oh god I loled at that... I think whoever wrote that whould do a reality check... its exactly like that already.

Regardless where you live in this world and what the code is called (NEDC, 10/15-Mode, FTP75), they are all faaaar of reality. The diffence is only that tihs regulations are done by goverments... so calling for the FTC wont change one step in that regard...

Also its quite funny to look at that statement and what amd is now suggesting to get there "AMD AllDay™ Power" (which is 8h+ at idle, which also doesn't refelct rl at all).

---

Are you suggesting they should offer "real numbers" while the competitor is promoting their idle work time? Talk about a marketing suicide.

It goes for the whole industry or no one. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

Also its quite funny to look at that statement and what amd is now suggesting to get there "AMD AllDay™ Power" (which is 8h+ at idle, which also doesn't refelct rl at all).

---

Dude, days in AMDland have 8 hours!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Dude, days in AMDland have 8 hours!

---

Yeah. That's because they are talking work days. How long is the night, evening and morning in your world btw?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Slower but smoother :rofl:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Dude, days in AMDland have 8 hours!

---

An Intel Fanboy like you that adds nothing valuable to the discussion should be banned from all threads that concern X86 and fair practises.

Just FYI: Most people do work 8 hours a day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crash5s

As for the "smoother" issue, there was some truth to that but it's largely horse crap as well. I got higher FPS consistently on a Q9650 than on a 940 BE, but lower FPS were also, well, lower. The 940 never got as many FPS but it also never plummeted, there wasn't as much fluctuation. However I always pinned the blame on the fact that nvidias 775 chipsets were problematic and finicky to say the least. I haven't had that problem with 1366.

---

That's typical narrow FSB behavior, you won't see that on an i7. I saw it on Q6600, sometimes some slight stutters, my Phenom 9850 didn't have that problem, the difference was noticable in GTA 4 among other games that had lots of data loaded all the time. On the other hand the Phenom was slower overall so if price and upgradeability wasn't an issue I'd go for the C2Q and try to overclock the FSB far enough for the problem to go away. ;) Still happy with my choice though, Phenom II on the same motherboard is worth it. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

That's typical narrow FSB behavior, you won't see that on an i7. I saw it on Q6600, sometimes some slight stutters, my Phenom 9850 didn't have that problem, the difference was noticable in GTA 4 among other games that had lots of data loaded all the time. On the other hand the Phenom was slower overall so if price and upgradeability wasn't an issue I'd go for the C2Q and try to overclock the FSB far enough for the problem to go away. ;) Still happy with my choice though, Phenom II on the same motherboard is worth it. :)

---

Hence why I said I didn't see it on 1366. And I didn't see the problem fixed by overclocking 775 CPUs at all. But my 680i, 780i, and 750i systems that I used the most all had issues left and right. So much so that I simply swapped GPUs and mobo's and went to Phenom II 780a configurations, and it went away. I haven't seen it on 1366 though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadov

Are you suggesting they should offer "real numbers" while the competitor is promoting their idle work time? Talk about a marketing suicide.

It goes for the whole industry or no one. :shrug:

---

Its not about the all day thing only beeing 8h (or more), but the thing that it is measured in idle state.... they claim Mobile Mark is a useless benchmark tool not refecting realworld and then they suggested this as a metric?
Come on srsly you can't defend that...

marketing does what it wants, its still a higher number than the competition offers when things are equal.

if cars are compared at 45mph for mpg, then its still fair, but shouldnt be a measure of highway millage.

double post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadov

Just FYI: Most people do work 8 hours a day.

---

Just FYI: A Real Life Day™ has 24 hours.

Well, maybe a bit more, as seen here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...om_SI_day_.svg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Just FYI: A Real Life Day™ has 24 hours.

Well, maybe a bit more, as seen here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...om_SI_day_.svg

---

Intel doesn't really advertise themselves as SSE5 killers, now do they? They also do not advertise the fact that they threatened OEM's to choke AMD. They also don't advertise that they cripple AMD processors, by rigging their compilers. Need more examples as to how marketing works?

Oh please not the crap "compiler conspiracy" again...

I just leave this here:
Attachment 116576

So, basically AMD wants more GPGPU benchmarks. I find it a bit strange when AMD speaks about "relevance" while not a single one commercial OpenCL software is available. How is this relevant to users? I know that games also important for users but for that purpose there is a bunch of benchmarks (such as 3DVantage with more then 90% of GPU weight in a final score).
BTW, AMD didn't propose any benchmark instead of Sysmark2007

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tifosi

Intel doesn't really advertise themselves as SSE5 killers, now do they? They also do not advertise the fact that they threatened OEM's to choke AMD. They also don't advertise that they cripple AMD processors, by rigging their compilers. Need more examples as to how marketing works?

---

Your point being? Mine is: laugh at the marketing folks, it's all you can do with them.

Just like that John Fruehe quoted post, where "pretty strong intel bias" (notice the lowercase i in Intel while not in the rest of names? :D) means "people who want the best performing compiler out there". Marketing at its best, and AMD marketing on top of that. These posts are food for laughs even before they're written :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

not a single one commercial opencl software is available

---

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

So, basically AMD wants more GPGPU benchmarks. I find it a bit strange when AMD speaks about "relevance" while not a single one commercial OpenCL software is available. How is this relevant to users? I know that games also important for users but for that purpose there is a bunch of benchmarks (such as 3DVantage with more then 90% of GPU weight in a final score).
BTW, AMD didn't propose any benchmark instead of Sysmark2007

---

Where have you get the infos AMD was asking about GPGPU parts in sysmark ?

you speak about AMD or Nvidia there ? ............. I ask me yet to who it will benefit more ..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lanek

Where have you get the infos AMD was asking about GPGPU parts in sysmark ?

you speak about AMD or Nvidia there ? ............. I ask me yet to who it will benefit more ..

---

Actually, from Nigel Dessau blog (posted above).

And here is BARCo's response:

Quote:

---

June 21, 2011 06:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time
BAPCo® Reaffirms Open Development Process For SYSmark® 2012

SAN MATEO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Business Applications Performance Corporation (BAPCo®) is a non-profit consortium made up of many of the leaders in the high tech field, including Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Hitachi, Intel, Lenovo, Microsoft, Samsung, Seagate, Sony, Toshiba and ARCintuition. For nearly 20 years BAPCo has provided real world application based benchmarks which are used by organizations worldwide. SYSmark® 2012 is the latest release of the premiere application based performance benchmark. Applications used in SYSmark 2012 were selected based on market research and include Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, Adobe Acrobat, WinZip, Autodesk AutoCAD and 3ds Max, and others.

Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) was, until recently, a long standing member of BAPCo. We welcomed AMD’s full participation in the two year development cycle of SYSmark 2012, AMD’s leadership role in creating the development process that BAPCo uses today and in providing expert resources for developing the workload contents. Each member in BAPCo gets one vote on any proposals made by member companies. AMD voted in support of over 80% of the SYSmark 2012 development milestones, and were supported by BAPCo in 100% of the SYSmark 2012 proposals they put forward to the consortium.

BAPCo also notes for the record that, contrary to the false assertion by AMD, BAPCo never threatened AMD with expulsion from the consortium, despite previous violations of its obligations to BAPCo under the consortium member agreement.

BAPCo is disappointed that a former member of the consortium has chosen once more to violate the confidentiality agreement they signed, in an attempt to dissuade customers from using SYSmark to assess the performance of their systems. BAPCo believes the performance measured in each of the six scenarios in SYSmark 2012, which is based on the research of its membership, fairly reflects the performance that users will see when fully utilizing the included applications.

About BAPCo®

The Business Applications Performance Corporation (BAPCo) is a non-profit consortium of leading independent testing labs, PC hardware manufacturers, semiconductor manufacturers and software publishers. Current BAPCo membership includes: Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, Intel, Lenovo, Microsoft, Samsung, Seagate, Sony, Toshiba and ARCintuition.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

Actually, from Nigel Dessau blog (posted above).

And here is BARCo's response:

Quote:

---

About BAPCo®

The Business Applications Performance Corporation (BAPCo) is a non-profit consortium of leading independent testing labs, PC hardware manufacturers, semiconductor manufacturers and software publishers. Current BAPCo membership includes: Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, Intel, Lenovo, Microsoft, Samsung, Seagate, Sony, Toshiba and ARCintuition.

---

---

So if you read carefully, you have may be 3 odd hdd manufacturers, a software vendor and 3-4 system integrators, but only 1 chip manufacturer, no graphic card manufacturer. All you have is one guy, who apparently has tried bribing the named system integrators (except Lenovo i guess) to sell its chips only/ primarily.

You don't wonder why VIA got up and left as well? Nvidia? So unless you're trolling without much real information to add, please waste somebody else's time with company issued statements like these. Oh, yes, did you notice that heading BAPCO is the guy from Intel who's in charge of performance management?

EDIT: Also, did you note that it wasn't just AMD who left, but they singled out AMD in their statement. That shows intent on BAPCO's part as to where their loyalties lie.

Instead of fighting about it you guys why don't you guys help me figure out how to spoof the cpu's completely?
I need msr info's, I got the cpu-id msr info already.
I need a few more id stuff's to complete the spoof.
Or do I need to doit all by myself lol :P :) ???

Don't have a 990X which you're spoofing mate. Infact, have nothing more than a C2D at this moment, which is hilarious and yet quite shameful. :P

Also, i heard certain portions in an AMD chip are hard locked and just can't be spoofed thus. Kindly read Agner Fog's blog, and if you're doing something similar, it may give you some insight.

I found this a min ago:
www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/appnote/241618.pdf

It should be enough to gather what info I need to change, then I'll have to look up the particular id stuff up to see how i can re-program it with some msr's.
This is sorta of important so I'll get it done eventually some time or another, I mean, it's a mod that I would be interested in if it indeed does affect performance in several apps.

Athlon vs P3 there wasn't a clear cut winner, Athlon XP vs Willamete was a bloodbath.
Northwood changed that picture a bit and with intruduction of HT intel left Athlon XP standing.
A64 was singlethread monster of the day, but in some cases P4 had its' way.
X2s were clear winners, but they showed one big thing for me - that AMD would price their CPUs as steep as they can, if they can get away with it. Even the cheapest X2 3800 was too pricey. :)

Just a piece of history from my standpoint.

And as for Intel cpu exclusive optimizing with Intel compiler - that's a completely true story. Intel defended with 'if its our CPU we know it can take the optimizations, if it isn't, then we do not know, and do not apply them'..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R101

Athlon vs P3 there wasn't a clear cut winner, Athlon XP vs Willamete was a bloodbath.
Northwood changed that picture a bit and with intruduction of HT intel left Athlon XP standing.
A64 was singlethread monster of the day, but in some cases P4 had its' way.
X2s were clear winners, but they showed one big thing for me - that AMD would price their CPUs as steep as they can, if they can get away with it. Even the cheapest X2 3800 was too pricey. :)

Just a piece of history from my standpoint.

And as for Intel cpu exclusive optimizing with Intel compiler - that's a completely true story. Intel defended with 'if its our CPU we know it can take the optimizations, if it isn't, then we do not know, and do not apply them'..

---

Plenty of truth in this post, i concur with it. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Your point being? Mine is: laugh at the marketing folks, it's all you can do with them.

Just like that John Fruehe quoted post, where "pretty strong intel bias" (notice the lowercase i in Intel while not in the rest of names? :D) means "people who want the best performing compiler out there". Marketing at its best, and AMD marketing on top of that. These posts are food for laughs even before they're written :p:

---

Intel's own logo has a lower case i. You are ridiculous.

Considering how the biggest compilers have been stated to *not* be intel, I am having a hard time finding that you think people who want the best performing compiler ... use intel compilers and then run benchmarks on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Slower but smoother :rofl:

---

This well documented effect has already been explained as a result of IMC. Keep laughing, it will only make you look sillier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R101

...
X2s were clear winners, but they showed one big thing for me - that AMD would price their CPUs as steep as they can, if they can get away with it. Even the cheapest X2 3800 was too pricey. :)

---

Well X2 3800+ cost 350$ at the time of premiere, you had dual core opterons fairly cheaply too.Now , Intels cheapest six core was 700-900$ for quite some time.Now its still like 500$.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegras

Intel's own logo has a lower case i. You are ridiculous.

Considering how the biggest compilers have been stated to *not* be intel, I am having a hard time finding that you think people who want the best performing compiler ... use intel compilers and then run benchmarks on them.

---

Since when do you or anybody with a bit of formation and not writing an SMS refer to a company with lowercase names? ;)

Since when market share is related to perfomance only? I do not think, I just know, because I use them. Intel compilers being the fastest is a well known and documented fact, check the good ol' Agner Fog article AMDdroids always use as reference and Google if you don't believe it. I'm sure you can find a corner case, but Intel compilers on Intel CPUs almost always perform better than Microsoft for example. If this wasn't the case, you wouldn't see AMD & Co. complaining. In fact, Intel compiled binaries are faster on AMD too, once you tell the compiler to use all the optimizations it uses for Intel only ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegras

This well documented effect has already been explained as a result of IMC. Keep laughing, it will only make you look sillier.

---

Yes, sorry, I just can't stop laughing. Specially when people use that serious tone :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R101

Athlon vs P3 there wasn't a clear cut winner, Athlon XP vs Willamete was a bloodbath.
Northwood changed that picture a bit and with intruduction of HT intel left Athlon XP standing.
A64 was singlethread monster of the day, but in some cases P4 had its' way.
X2s were clear winners, but they showed one big thing for me - that AMD would price their CPUs as steep as they can, if they can get away with it. Even the cheapest X2 3800 was too pricey. :)

Just a piece of history from my standpoint.

And as for Intel cpu exclusive optimizing with Intel compiler - that's a completely true story. Intel defended with 'if its our CPU we know it can take the optimizations, if it isn't, then we do not know, and do not apply them'..

---

Agree with most of your history except this part. At the time, IntEl's anti-competitive, illegal and market abusive tactics were in full affect (now they're just implimented in different ways). IntEl were selling their selling their hotter, slower and more power hungry chips for a significant amount more, and selling them well. The market balance would have stayed exactly the same whether AMD sold their top of the line for $300 and IntEl sold theirs for the same $1200. IntEl was controlling pricing, it wasn't open market competition.



As far as the 'smoothness' that many refer to, of course it is noticeable and quantifiable. People would notice it as 'lag' or 'latency' when opening applications, switching windows, switching tasks, etc.

Quote:

---

AMD also points out that the president of BAPCo happens to be the head of performance benchmarking at Intel.

---

If true, that is quite a conflict of interest, and OEM support of BAPCo (at $10k-$20k annually ??) kinda reeks of a pay-to-play scheme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NEOAethyr

Instead of fighting about it you guys why don't you guys help me figure out how to spoof the cpu's completely?
I need msr info's, I got the cpu-id msr info already.
I need a few more id stuff's to complete the spoof.
Or do I need to doit all by myself lol :P :) ???

---

You cant. Change the CPUID in the CPU and your board will go nuts.

This thread is going well and staying on topic...wait, no it's not.

Thread closed. :shakes: