Your point being? Mine is: laugh at the marketing folks, it's all you can do with them.Originally Posted by tifosi
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?) 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
Friends shouldn't let friends use Windows 7 until Microsoft fixes Windows Explorer (link)
Intel's own logo has a lower case i. You are ridiculous.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?
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.
This well documented effect has already been explained as a result of IMC. Keep laughing, it will only make you look sillier.Slower but smoother
Last edited by cegras; 06-23-2011 at 07:22 AM.
E7200 @ 3.4 ; 7870 GHz 2 GB
Intel's atom is a terrible chip.
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
Yes, sorry, I just can't stop laughing. Specially when people use that serious tone
Friends shouldn't let friends use Windows 7 until Microsoft fixes Windows Explorer (link)
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.
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.AMD also points out that the president of BAPCo happens to be the head of performance benchmarking at Intel.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks