That was a personal experience note I made that they clarified after, long before now. I was told on September 8th as I asked then, not that they were told on September 8th. To many others, yes AMD withheld all the facts of their product performance => the exaggerated word for that would be "deceived", but I've already said this more than once. They didn't lie to the person I talked to at that government corp, they had already shown them the system up and running since July for demo's with its expected performance and clarified very clearly the "yet to be approved" ballpark figures for a 2.0GHz Barcelona and a 2.6GHz Barcelona in SPECfp_rate and SPECint_rate (2006). Those figures turned out to be fully true. They also said the major improvement was in SPECfp_rate 2006, so they weren't exactly lying to that corp. If they had, the corp wouldn't have looked back at them twice which includes government IT orders and that would've been a heavy loss for AMD.Originally Posted by Donnie27
Corporations don't rely on being spoon-fed their data like other customers, they make their analysis from what they are shown early on before release and leave it up to the seller to prove their product to them after that. If they can't, its their loss. They 'aint weak minded enough to fall for "40% improvement over Clovertown" from a well dressed PR woman until they see it and this goes for market analysts too. When the IT department of the hospital I work at asked AMD about what was the fastest Family K10h they can retail "optimistically" by mid-January in early September, they replied very clearly "2.6GHz B2 step is looking like the best possible around that time period". There's no lies in that either and yet all the reason to do so.
There's no misunderstanding, I said the same thing before your reply to me. I don't care what AMD or Intel did more than I do that a rat is dying right now DownTown 5th street alley way because screaming about it long after its happened doesn't do anything to curb it nor change it. Would've made a due difference back then though. We can all read what they claimed and what came to be of it. Was I deceived by the 40% marketing figures or what they applied to? No, neither were many others. Who was deceived? Anyone gullible or not understanding marketing rigmarole and computer architecture enough to fall for it. Marketing equals boast of your best facts and hiding of your worst facts, and we knew the SPECfp_rate is where AMD shines most and will boast most about at any given chance. I've already made it clear that it was physically impossible for them to validly claim and for someone educated in computing architecture to accept 40% improvement overall over Clovertown by their transistor technology. All it takes is for someone to understand microprocessors to be able to guess that at BEST K10h could've been a 10% improvement over Core 2, nothing more, which it wasn't. Were other people deceived? Yes. Do I care? No, but why should I? They should learn micrprocessors better before following some salesman's claims blindly, and that goes in anything. It wasn't me or any close one to me who made any loss, nor anyone relying on me.Then you are the one with the misunderstanding here. I said AMD lied, I didn't say if they later clarified or not. They said, not anyone else said for them or misunderstood anything. There wasn't any careful wording or anything.
AND FWIW, you will see a similar trend with the new architecture too. AMD with IBM are working on low-k dielectric. Low-k allows very good power savings, more than high-k but no where near as good clock frequencies as high-k dielectric like Intel chose. At higher clocks the gate leakage starts increasing rapidly. It's one of its major weaknesses.
It is disappointing that AMD has nothing to directly compete clock-for-clock with Penryn though, just like C2D vs X2 basically.
Bookmarks