Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ZDNet Says AMD Posts Blatantly Deceptive Benchmark

Zonk posted about 7 years ago | from the read-things-on-the-internet-with-a-grain-of-salt dept.

AMD 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."

cancel ×

180 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Who trusts a vendor's benchmarks anyway? (5, Insightful)

nweaver (113078) | about 7 years ago | (#19756961)

Vendor benchmarks are always considered untrustworthy, so I don't see what the big deal is.

Re:Who trusts a vendor's benchmarks anyway? (-1, Flamebait)

bitrot42 (523887) | about 7 years ago | (#19756997)


I mod you +5000, Insightful.

Re:Who trusts a vendor's benchmarks anyway? (5, Interesting)

PFI_Optix (936301) | about 7 years ago | (#19757007)

If we don't point out every time they use blatantly unfair product comparisons, the amount of disinformation coming out of vendors will only increase. Even though very few people (just the fanboys) place any stock in AMD's or Intel's benchmarks, it's worth pointing out flaws like this to keep them as honest as we possibly can.

Re:Who trusts a vendor's benchmarks anyway? (5, Insightful)

CatsupBoy (825578) | about 7 years ago | (#19757339)

If we don't point out every time they use blatantly unfair product comparisons, the amount of disinformation coming out of vendors will only increase
Or the amount of crap product comparisons will continue to be the same no matter how much its pointed out.

Companies will continue to tout themselves as top dogs, regardless of the facts. And it never ceases to amaze me how far they go to stretch the truth in order to make themselves look good.

How else could salesmen go into a room and pitch their product? Or how can manufacturers sell their AMD products when competitors are pushing Intel? And vice versa? Its capitalism at its best.

Re:Who trusts a vendor's benchmarks anyway? (4, Insightful)

PFI_Optix (936301) | about 7 years ago | (#19757639)

Or the amount of crap product comparisons will continue to be the same no matter how much its pointed out.


You don't think it can get worse? You don't think it would get worse if there weren't people crying foul at the current comparisons?

You can use legitimate comparisons to tout a product, you don't have to unfairly match them. Look at your average car commercial (fictional example):

Ford's new truck gets better gas mileage than Dodge.
Ford's new truck has a bigger, more powerful engine than Chevy.

They just said it's better than Dodge and Chevy, but in two completely different ways. They do this all the time in marketing. If nothing else, AMD could talk up price points and power efficiency, two things they almost always have over Intel. Skewed benchmarks just make the company look inept and leave knowledgeable consumers feeling like AMD is insulting their intelligence.

Re:Who trusts a vendor's benchmarks anyway? (1)

CatsupBoy (825578) | about 7 years ago | (#19758079)

You don't think it can get worse? You don't think it would get worse if there weren't people crying foul at the current comparisons?
No, I dont think it will get much worse because companies will say as much as they can, just shy of getting sued. Whats the point in being number 2 in any market? You have to make the customer think your product is the best purchase out there, no matter what reality is.

You can use legitimate comparisons to tout a product, you don't have to unfairly match them.
Only true if you have something better then the other guy. What if you dont? Then you either make stuff up or go say to your investors "Sorry folks, but we just got beat. Oh by the way, can we have some more money?". Not likely.

Its easy for car companies to say various things are better then the other guy because there are 1000+ different points to consider when buying a car. But were talking about two CPUs that pretty much do the exact same thing. Either it outperforms at a better cost or it doesnt. And if it doesnt who the hell would put money on it? (besides the fanboys).

Skewed benchmarks just make the company look inept and leave knowledgeable consumers feeling like AMD is insulting their intelligence.
Companies only look inept to knowledgeable consumers. If you consider that a dying breed, then their only insulting a small number of people. Their playing the margins, and most consumers probably buy into it.

Re:Who trusts a vendor's benchmarks anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19757665)

An amusing case and point:

From XGI's 'where to buy' section (apparantly, nobody is selling them!)
A market bottom-dog-pack-runt [xgitech.com]

Want to deliver the market's most competitive product to your customers? Want to stay ahead from the rest? Please contact us and we will provide you with the most outstanding graphics chipset solution from XGI.


if you don't know, they are a video card manufacturer. The reason I was even on their site, is I remembered they had OSS drivers that they released (apparantly only 2D), but I was looking for something that wasn't nVidia (no 64 bit drivers in BSD), or ATI (horrible experiences), and currently the X3100 chipset (or the X3000 with DVI) is not available from Intel yet...

But back on the topic, you are quite correct, even the bottom of the totem poll will do that kind of phallic waving to suggest they are the top.

Re:Who trusts a vendor's benchmarks anyway? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19757397)

If you read the comments on TFA, apparently the chart was originally posted in April. At the time these results were posted they were believed to be true (albeit based on "estimated" performance.) Same with the supposed WSJ ads. Since then the clock speed of the AMD has come down and the old scores have changed. It seems that AMD's real mistake here was not updating the information on their site.

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:Who trusts a vendor's benchmarks anyway? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19757745)

If you read the comments on TFA

You must be new here. Welcome to /.

Re:Who trusts a vendor's benchmarks anyway? (4, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about 7 years ago | (#19757635)

Still, the submission misses the point completely when it want benchmarks of only CPUs that's on the market. The reason for the benchmarks of CPUs that haven't been released yet is so OEMs and retailers know a little more of what to expect, and make plans for ordering (or not ordering) accordingly. If there's no benchmarks of unreleased CPUs, it would not hit the market, and thus wouldn't be benchmarked -- catch 22.

Who the manufacturer compares against is of course up to them, and there's nothing "unfair" about it. It's telling the world that this is the competition they strive to beat. If it's an older CPU, the new CPU is obviously intended as a replacement for these. If I had a large server farm running these Xeons, I'd be most interested to see this benchmark, well before the CPUs actually come out (if they're already out on the market, they will be off the market by the time upper management approves the budget). And remember, AMD and Intel aren't in the game to try to trick you to buy a CPU that won't work well for you -- they want you to return for your CPU needs, over and over again. That's why they publish benchmarks like these, which are relevant, just not to the GP.

Other comparisons both will and do appear once a CPU has hit the market. But for the initial pre-release vendor benchmarks, I'd rather it be the choice of the vendor, so we can see where the market position is going to be.

Move along -- nothing to see here, except for a particularly silly submission.

Re:Who trusts a vendor's benchmarks anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19758115)

You seem to have missed the part where they compared them only to older Intel CPU's, and conveniently ignored the fact that current Xeons could beat them in benchmarks. Fanboy much?

Perhaps (3, Informative)

Colin Smith (2679) | about 7 years ago | (#19757993)

They are benchmarking against Xeons because they are going to price them at the older Xeon's level rather than the newer faster faster ones...

 

Re:Who trusts a vendor's benchmarks anyway? (2, Interesting)

yfarren (159985) | about 7 years ago | (#19757139)

The point is, someone is lying.

While it may be the case that marketers generally lie, that is something to be opposed.

When people lie, when people disseminate false information, it harms the public. That people do so a lot simply means that they are hurting the public a lot. To say "Well, everyone harms the public, why is it a big deal that this person is harming the public" is to say it is ok to harm the public.

It isn't. Lying, disseminating false information is harmful. If it is done a lot, that just means there is a lot of harm being done, and should be opposed by the public MORE strongly.

To become blase' about people who lie and mislead simply encourages people to lie and mislead. It means that someone who tells the truth wont actually be listened too, because "well everyone lies". Which makes it more difficult for someone who does tell the truth.

I would suggest you re-examine your values, and whoever modded you up should re-examine their values. Accepting lies as a Fait Accompli, and just assuming everyone lies, as opposed to holding liars accountable for the lies they tell, simply encourages liars, and makes it even harder for someone to tell the truth (which is often more expensive than lying), as they wont be believed anyway.

Re:Who trusts a vendor's benchmarks anyway? (4, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about 7 years ago | (#19757839)

If someone is lying, could you please care to name a lie?
Cause I can't see a single lie. Self-flattery, yes, and selective truths, yes, but no lies.

If you're in the business (and if you're not, this type of benchmark isn't meant for you), you know very well how to read and interpret the reported benchmarks and marketese. It's the expected format, which is helpful to those who need to know these things, e.g. because they are planning on upgrading a large Xeon farm to faster CPUs at as low cost as possible, or because they're a large OEM who needs to know the market segment this CPU is intended for, so they know both how much to order and how to market it.

Can we all stop this lynch mob now?

Re:Who trusts a vendor's benchmarks anyway? (2, Interesting)

arivanov (12034) | about 7 years ago | (#19757951)

Absolutely.

And the fact that the CPU is not going to hit the high street for 6 odd months does not mean that selected engineering samples cannot be clocked to the same frequency. So in fact, the test is most likely run on a real CPU. Even further, if it is shipping in 6 months to stores the engineering samples have to hit OEMs and major manufacturers now so they can verify their designs.

Oh, and by the way, both AMD and Intel do this all the time. Intel was publishing Core benchmarks for 3-6 months ahead of launches. If we dig around their site I bet that we are going to find at least one benchmark for a CPU that is yet to be officially released.

Re:Who trusts a vendor's benchmarks anyway? (4, Interesting)

cbreaker (561297) | about 7 years ago | (#19758173)

And, not ONLY all that, all of these enthusiast sites continually post overclocked benchmarks for these CPU's.

They used to do it with the Pentium 4 all the time; You'd see a currently available Athlon versus a currently available Pentium 4 in a bechmark chart, and next to it would be a 60% overclocked P4 that requires special cooling. Yet they'd always say "BUT The OverClocked one BLOWS AMD AWAY!"

Just because this is coming from a manufacturer doesn't make it any less valid, and I don't see why AMD has to go hunting for Intel's latest CPU with the same model number (but a different revision) just to keep things fair OUT of their favor.

Besides, all this SPECint and CPU benchmark crap is worthless anyways, unless all you do with your server is run scientific calculations. In real world SMP applications, such as heavy-use VMware servers or database servers with lots of I/O and RAM, the Opterons will always kick the crap out of the Intel boxes with the Northbridge bottleneck. HyperTransport is the key to actually USING all of those system resources.

Re:Who trusts a vendor's benchmarks anyway? (1, Troll)

yfarren (159985) | about 7 years ago | (#19758009)

Comparing a product that I (may) produce, 4 months from now, to one that someone else, did produce, 4 months ago, in a rapidly changing market, to imply that "My chips are better than their chips" is lying.

To say "oh, selective truths to imply an untruth" isn't lying, is to play a stupid, and harmful semantic game.

This isn't a lynch mob. It is people pointing out that AMD is lying in their use of the "expected" format, to say something, which isn't true (our chips outperform their chips).

It is people saying "we are tired of people abusing our trust, and using bad numbers to imply things which are false".

To say "well, they aren't saying anything which isn't true, my future chips do outperform their former chips" is disingenuous. It may be, literally true, but the implications of that graph are misleading and therefore a lie.

This isn't helpful to some buyer, as it doens't compare two comparable items. My not yet released chips, are not comparable to their old chips. That you suggest something else, makes me wonder who you are writing for.

Re:Who trusts a vendor's benchmarks anyway? (3, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about 7 years ago | (#19758189)

Comparing a product that I (may) produce, 4 months from now, to one that someone else, did produce, 4 months ago, in a rapidly changing market, to imply that "My chips are better than their chips" is lying.

Really? You have a very strange definition of "lying", then. I think it shows how good a replacement the new CPU would be compared to the older one, but what do I know?

To say "well, they aren't saying anything which isn't true, my future chips do outperform their former chips" is disingenuous. It may be, literally true, but the implications of that graph are misleading and therefore a lie.

How is it misleading? It's a very good indicator on whether the future CPU would be a good replacement for the old CPU, and that is useful information to many -- both large companies and OEMs. The only misleading here seems to be people misleading themselves into thinking the benchmark is for a different purpose than it is.

This isn't helpful to some buyer, as it doens't compare two comparable items. My not yet released chips, are not comparable to their old chips. That you suggest something else, makes me wonder who you are writing for.

Me, myself and I. I refuse to join a lynch mob without thinking things through first.

Re:Who trusts a vendor's benchmarks anyway? (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | about 7 years ago | (#19757155)

Vendor benchmarks are always considered untrustworthy, so I don't see what the big deal is.

Hm, what a nice example of self-fulfilling prophecy.

I prefer another one though: accept Intel and AMD's benchmarks should be accurate to utmost detail, and put up a riot every time we see they aren't.

Re:Who trusts a vendor's benchmarks anyway? (2, Insightful)

baggins2001 (697667) | about 7 years ago | (#19757231)

No kidding
I don't think the accuracy of the benchmarks is in question here.
The deceptive manor in which the benchmark data was presented is the issue. Which is really a none issue. This is advertisement, anybody who doesn't look critically at data presented by the manufacturere is really gullible.
Anybody who doesn't look critically at the data from a third party is pretty gullible
I really really don't see the problem here

Re:Who trusts a vendor's benchmarks anyway? (5, Insightful)

mgoheen (244365) | about 7 years ago | (#19757559)

> Vendor benchmarks are always considered untrustworthy, so I don't see what the big deal is.

That logic gets you into trouble...

Politician promises are always considered untrustworthy, so I don't see what the big deal is.

Auto companies are untrustworthy, so you should expect the brakes to fail.

People are untrustworthy, so if you are robbed, it's your fault for carrying cash.

People are killed every day, so I don't see what the big deal with Iraq is.

etc.

Sheesh...wrong is wrong, no matter who is doing it. If you don't fight it, you're part of the problem.

Re:Who trusts a vendor's benchmarks anyway? (0, Flamebait)

Applekid (993327) | about 7 years ago | (#19757825)

Thing is, if the new CPU truly is the next greatest thing since shaved ice, they wouldn't need to be deceptive. They'd use fair and unbiased benchmarks and their CPU will float to the top.

The deceptive benchmark is indicative of one thing: the new CPU blows. Otherwise it wouldn't be needed.

What I would be concerned about is whether this was put forth by the marketing teams to cover up a costly R&D backtrack or it was put forth by the lead engineering groups to save their butts from the fire from the executives since they wouldn't know a good CPU if it burned them in the butt*.

* Not a direct attack on executives since, by definition, they're there to RUN a business and not actually develop FOR the business, so, knowing a good CPU is simply out of scope and their only references are what their employees tell them.

I can smell the desperation (2, Insightful)

Urusai (865560) | about 7 years ago | (#19756995)

Core 2 is smoking AMD and they are panicking. Do they even have a real next gen architecture, aside from bizarre (albeit intriguing) CPU/GPU hybrids?

Re:I can smell the desperation (1)

rstarg (1080657) | about 7 years ago | (#19757053)

I hope that AMD can get their act together - I would hate to see Intel as the only game in town.

Re:I can smell the desperation (1)

moore.dustin (942289) | about 7 years ago | (#19757271)

Only if they deserve to be there. Having AMD around just to it around is pointless. Intel is competing and dominating right now. If AMD cannot survive because of it, so be it. they deserve to go. Of course, I am not advocating for a monopoly, but if AMD cannot compete, I am all for them failing.

Re:I can smell the desperation (1)

RingDev (879105) | about 7 years ago | (#19757663)

You should head over to the wikipedia and read the history of AMD. It's an interesting read, and it might shed some light on the whole AMD vs Intel deal.

-Rick

Re:I can smell the desperation (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 7 years ago | (#19758169)

Well for one I don't think Intel is dominating right now.
In the 8 or more core server market AMD is still the better choice.
On the desktop AMDs X2 3800s are a great choice for about 95% of the market.
Where Intel really is dominating is the Laptop market. That is an extremely important market that AMD just can not seem to do well in.
As to wanting AMD to fail. Good greif I hope not. If Intel didn't have AMD we would still have P4s and be paying through the noise for them!

Re:I can smell the desperation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19757401)

Only game in town? What about VIA [via.com.tw] ?

Re:I can smell the desperation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19757827)

VIA doesn't matter. It's CPUs are aimed at a different market. Guess whose CPUs they use for their performance epia line? I'll give you a hint, it begins with an I.

Not the architecture.. (1)

Junta (36770) | about 7 years ago | (#19757059)

In the broader sense of an 'architecture' in my mind, AMDs has a more advanced one than Intel (the integrated and hypertransport IO/multi-processor strategy).

Intel does, however, have a faster processor design than AMD's released product. If Barcelona levels the field in terms of instructions per clock, then the ball is back to Intel's court to at least meet AMDs memory/SMP/IO architecture or offset that deficiency with another leap in the processor technology. I hear Intel's roadmap eventually brings in a more AMD-like architecture in 2008, so that will probably be the time where the two vendors have the most easily comparable technology.

Re:Not the architecture.. (2, Insightful)

Iam9376 (1096787) | about 7 years ago | (#19757335)

In the broader sense of an 'architecture' in my mind, AMDs has a more advanced one than Intel (the integrated and hypertransport IO/multi-processor strategy).


Then it seems your mind needs an update. Intel's Core 2 architecture is significantly better than AMD's current or past (and seemingly future) architectures.

Putting all the fanboy drivel aside for a moment;
Intel's processors are faster without using more transistors, indications that the architecture is more optimized and makes better use of the available transistors.
Intel's processors scale vastly better than AMD's offerings both current and future.
Also consider, the die shrink to 65nm for AMD produced little to no benefits in speed and scalability (read: you couldn't over clock them very much)
Also, if anyone remembers, the Pentium M (which the Core 2 is based off) was benchmarked a few years ago against the AMD 64bit desktop processors and spanked them, no not in all cases or by any significant margin, but the fact a low power laptop processor (32bit) matched a 64bit mid-range/hi-end processor from AMD; that should indicate the advantages of the architecture.

Just because Intel does not currently have the memory controller on board, as well as the use of the older FSB does not make the Intel architecture any less advanced, the proof is in the puddin`, check any benchmark that puts current purchaseable processors and see how wins.

You're right about Intel, they will be releasing CSI (common system interconnect) for their processors in `08, if CSI does for Intel what even half of HT did for AMD, they may be in very serious trouble.

Sorry, but the rest of your post is moot.

Re:Not the architecture.. (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 7 years ago | (#19757589)

Intel's Core 2 architecture is significantly better than AMD's current or past (and seemingly future) architectures
In some ways, yes. The micro-op fusion stuff is incredibly shiny. They took some good branch prediction logic from NetBurst, and have a lot of neat tricks internally, particularly in the cache controller. On the edge of the CPU, AMD have the lead. They have a better interconnect (they are going to lose this lead soon, once Intel get CSI out of the door), and they have more intelligent memory controllers, which give them the edge in virtualisation and a few other things.

It's not entirely fair to say Intel is ahead of AMD architecturally. Both architectures have their strengths and weaknesses. At the moment, Intel are getting better overall performance (which means performance per Watt these days), but their architecture does have a few issues.

Re:Not the architecture.. (5, Interesting)

Ambassador Kosh (18352) | about 7 years ago | (#19757633)

I definitely don't agree that the intel systems scale vastly better. Most of the 4+ way benchmarks I have see with 8 or more cores go to amd pretty handily, The more memory the benchmarks need to use the worse off it gets for intel. So for desktops and very small servers where IO is not very important Intel is currently ahead in pure performance. If you need to setup an 8 core db server with 32GB of ram I would definitely go with opterons.

AMD is definitely not losing on the higher end server stuff, they are losing on the gaming desktops though since the Core 2 is a faster chip. For business work you pretty much never need something very fast. Probably the 3600+ is overkill for just about any business task and it currently as the best value of any chip I know of.

Re:Not the architecture.. (1)

Iam9376 (1096787) | about 7 years ago | (#19757691)

I definitely don't agree that the intel systems scale vastly better.


Sorry I should have clarified, I meant scaled in the sense of clock frequency (overclocking).

Re:Not the architecture.. (1)

Ambassador Kosh (18352) | about 7 years ago | (#19758135)

Ah for what I do I have never overclocked. I run all items at their spec settings and think of scaling as working with much larger datasets and things like that.

Re:I can smell the desperation (0)

Zantetsuken (935350) | about 7 years ago | (#19757273)

Yes, and it is this very "Barcelona" K10 [wikipedia.org] and "Phenom" [wikipedia.org] - which unlike Intel's "Quad-core" which is 2 dual-core processors on one 2 socket motherboard, AMD's approach will actually have 4 cores on one die. This means AMD doesn't have the same self-imposed bottleneck that Intel put on themselves by using 2x socket (the bus speed between the 2 is the bottleneck).

Re:I can smell the desperation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19758087)

I think you're mixing something up, there...

MOD PARENT DOWN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19758237)

He repeatedly states that Intel quad core uses two sockets, which is not the case at all.

Re:I can smell the desperation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19757369)

It really isn't, you know, at least not at the high-end - there, AMD's hypertransport bus makes it far more attractive. Core 2s are okay for gamerz and desktops, pretty crappy in a climate simulator or whatever.

Re:I can smell the desperation (1, Interesting)

Phu5ion (838043) | about 7 years ago | (#19757383)

It takes time for either side to release a new arch. How many years was AMD smoking Intel before they came out with the Core 2 series? AMD fanboyism aside, the Core 2 is a very great platform, but you have to thank AMD for forcing Intel to step it up, otherwise we would be paying twice as much today for a chip that performs about as well as the old P3. Competition is good and I, for one, can't wait to see what AMD comes up with next.

I choose AMD for the price... (2, Interesting)

Spy der Mann (805235) | about 7 years ago | (#19757025)

i'm really not that interested in benchmarks. Besides my personal position is that AMD are the "good guys" and Intel are the "bad guys" because of their monopolistic practices.

It's kinda hard when you see your "heroes" do bad things, and I feel tempted to give excuses. In any case, the news won't make me trade my 3800+ dual core Athlon 64 for an intel Core 2 duo of the same speed and have to pay twice the price.

Re:I choose AMD for the price... (2, Insightful)

bealzabobs_youruncle (971430) | about 7 years ago | (#19757143)

Or course it won't cause you to "trade my 3800+ dual core Athlon 64 for an intel Core 2 duo of the same speed and have to pay twice the price" becuase none of those circumstances are possible. I like AMD too, but they got owned this round and that is just the way it is. AMD is just as capable of evil and more guilty of whining, brand loyalty is for suckers in regards to performance desktop computing; buy the fastest gear you can get at the moment of purchase.

Re:I choose AMD for the price... (1)

Zantetsuken (935350) | about 7 years ago | (#19757403)

OTOH, perhaps an Athlon x64 3800 x2 is overkill in speed for whatever purposes he uses it for, meaning he actually doesn't have any need for a faster Intel Core 2 Duo?

Also, AMD may not quite be the absolute fastest, but last I looked on Newegg (around last week) they certainly were the cheapest. And I don't mean only the processor was cheapest - each time I spec out parts for a motherboard/cpu/RAM/etc (that is, using a minimum standard of manufacture and processor class being Athlon/whatever Intel's equivalent is called now) using an AMD socket motherboard is AFAIK every time cheaper than an Intel solution...

Re:I choose AMD for the price... (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 7 years ago | (#19757667)

Indeed. A quick look at Pricewatch [pricewatch.com] will confirm this. In terms of bang for the buck, AMD is much better. An Athlon 64 x2 3800 at 2.0 Ghz mobo combo will set you back ~$115-135, while the equivalent core 2 duo system (IMHO), a e4300 will set you back ~$155-175, at the time of this writing.

Re:I choose AMD for the price... (1)

Rakishi (759894) | about 7 years ago | (#19757943)

The e4300 seems closer performance wise to a 4600+ than a 3800+. The 4600+ is almost the same price as the e4300.

So while AMD has cheaper processors that doesn't mean they are a better bang for the buck. To be honest if you have no use for the performance then just buy a used system of some sort.

Re:I choose AMD for the price... (2, Insightful)

QuantumPion (805098) | about 7 years ago | (#19757213)

AMD and Intel are CPU manufacturers, not sports teams. Buy the product that is the best performing at the lowest price.

Re:I choose AMD for the price... (2, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | about 7 years ago | (#19757387)

I mostly agree, but customers big enough to influece market dynamics, like Dell or the US Government, should think about how awful it's going to be buying a computer in a few years if AMD falls out of the race. Personally I'm a little worried about it.

Re:I choose AMD for the price... (2, Informative)

freedumb2000 (966222) | about 7 years ago | (#19757411)

That is true but should all be still hoping for a comeback of AMD. No one really wants the early 90s back where Intel ruled the block with no competitor, but high prices and complete control of if and when raise x86 CPU speeds to the next iteration. There is a reason why Intel still fights them tooth and nail. There where others before AMD but it's the only and first successful competitor in the x86 space for Intel. Imagine if there where only ATI or Nvida.

Re:I choose AMD for the price... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19757611)

AMD and Intel are CPU manufacturers, not sports teams.

And why is it that the argument is suddenly justified if you're talking about sports teams? It's all a bunch of follow-the-leader rah-rah-rah-ing as far as I'm concerned.

Re:I choose AMD for the price... (1)

locokamil (850008) | about 7 years ago | (#19757279)

I've currently got a couple of 3800+ based dual cores doing server duty and media recording, and a 5200+ for my main desktop rig. I'd spring for Core2's... except for the fact that they cost twice as much and don't add much value to my home network. Basically, AMD beats Intel in terms of value, but loses the "brute force" race.

Re:I choose AMD for the price... (1)

Rashkae (59673) | about 7 years ago | (#19758053)

Of course it makes sense not to replace perfectly working, top of the line systems.. but where do you get this figure that Intel costs twice as much? Intel CPU's now cost *less* than equivalent performing AMD CPU's (Although, the figures kind of even out with all of AMD's recent price cuts.)

Re:I choose AMD for the price... (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | about 7 years ago | (#19757295)

In any case, the news won't make me trade my 3800+ dual core Athlon 64 for an intel Core 2 duo of the same speed and have to pay twice the price.

You shouldn't replace something you already have with something that isn't any better. Who is suggesting you do that? That would be a pretty stupid thing to do. Someone that has the Core 2 Duo would also be stupid to replace the system for an Athlon 64 of the same speed, both ways, it's spending money to get no improvement.

I am shocked! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19757041)

A company trying to make itself look as good as possible?! Next thing you'll know, Windows Vista isn't the most secure operating system ever made.

It's not the deceptive benchmarks that bother me (3, Interesting)

realmolo (574068) | about 7 years ago | (#19757051)

What REALLY upsets me is the fact that the writers at ZDNet actually get *paid* to regurgitate data they likely found on some other website via Google.

What a great job.

Re:It's not the deceptive benchmarks that bother m (2, Insightful)

eln (21727) | about 7 years ago | (#19757179)

Welcome to tech journalism. All you have to do is publish companies' press releases. For "in depth" articles, you visit their offices and have the PR guys talk to you all day. For product reviews, you repeat the companies' benchmarks and then turn on your demo unit to take some screenshots (if you can't find screenshots on the manufacturer's website, that is).

As someone who once worked for a company producing a product that had major hardware issues (as well as some fairly significant software bugs) yet still got rave reviews from tech sites, I can tell you this is pretty much how it works.

The Irony Is Amazing (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19757149)

So poor liddle Intel, the company that is the undisputed king of bogus benchmarking with their infamous SPEC compiler bullshit and a sickening array of other crap, is crying foul over someone else playing hardball?

Suck it up bitches. Don't dish it out if you can't take it right back Intel.

Re:The Irony Is Amazing (1)

Iam9376 (1096787) | about 7 years ago | (#19757443)

Are you too stupid to read past the headlines? Intel is no where mentioned accusing AMD of bogus benchmarks. ZDNet accused them, moron, even the fucking header says that.

Get a life fanboy, not every anti-AMD post is a result of Intel bitching.

(and yes, i know this is slashdot, but come on..)

Re:The Irony Is Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19757743)

Yep, this had nothing to do with the Intel PR/Marketing types making calls/sending off emails...

Dipshit.

This is surprising? (2, Informative)

Etrias (1121031) | about 7 years ago | (#19757165)

George Ou has long been an Intel/Windows whipping boy. He's not far off of writing the article that says that AMD has "Seal clubbing days" and internal seminars on "Making your grandmother cry".

Re:This is surprising? (1, Interesting)

edremy (36408) | about 7 years ago | (#19757305)

I saw a lot of comments about that on the talkback section

Perhaps you'd like to actually address the complaint? Seemed pretty solid to me- Intel has used the best available, hard-to-cheat-on benchmark out there (SPEC) and gotten results. AMD is posting old results for Intel, results for AMD processors that don't exist yet and ignoring the best possible Intel products. Yes, it's advertising, but it's pretty crappy advertising, bordering on the deliberately deceptive. I'm a longtime fan of AMD- my home machines are AMD, I own stock in AMD, but crap like this makes me think about selling. If AMD is this desperate, they are in serious crapola

Re:This is surprising? (1)

njfuzzy (734116) | about 7 years ago | (#19757851)

A whipping boy is someone who gets an undue amount of negative attention. Are you trying to say that George Ou gets a lot of crap from Intel/Windows? I think you mean he is a schill, or maybe a hired gun.

Bad comparision but. (1)

ThisIsWhyImHot (1121637) | about 7 years ago | (#19757173)

I agree that this is a poor comparision made to make AMD look a lot better then it is. But the fact is that these new cpu's coming out from AMD look like they're going to be the best on the market.

Re:Bad comparision but. (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 7 years ago | (#19757843)

Facts? what facts?

Re:Bad comparision but. (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | about 7 years ago | (#19758015)

But the fact is that these new cpu's coming out from AMD look like they're going to be the best on the market.

The best for what purpose? I evaluate chips based upon speed, price, power consumption, reliability, and "bonus features" with my needs in mind. Looking at the numbers, AMD is not winning the high end for speed, even with their next round of updates compared to Intel's current offerings. Power consumptions seems like a wash, or even a little bit in Intel's favor as well. I don't see any "bonus features" I care about in the revisions likely to ship in the next 6 months. So that pretty much leaves price, which of course will be constantly changing over time as chips are released.

Now I'm not counting AMD out for the next time I build a box, but unless that box is a really cheap server or low end pseudo-dumb terminal I don't see any reason to think AMD winning my evaluation is likely. They seem to have been well and truly outgunned and it looks like it will stay that way for a year or more based upon fab processes and roadmaps. I certainly hope they can turn it around and keep the competition fierce, but I just don't see where someone can objectively rate AMDs next round of processors as the "best."

trust? (1, Redundant)

SolusSD (680489) | about 7 years ago | (#19757215)

large publicly held corporations are usually only as honest as they have to be to hide their dishonesty

Yeah, But Ou Loudly Beat's Intel's Drum (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19757243)

Being a subscriber to various TechRepublic newsletters I can say that ol' Georgie seems to have a very pro-Intel attitude, perhaps even to the point of "Fanboy".

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.

What a load of lying malarkey (1, Insightful)

(negative video) (792072) | about 7 years ago | (#19757259)

If AMD was comparing one architecture to another, they MUST do so based on identical core clock to memory clock ratios.

So what are the ratios in question, ZDNet? <pull string> "Math is hard."

Then the ZDNet jerkoff has the gall to complain that AMD didn't use the latest SPEC.org numbers. Well, duh. RUNNING benchmarks means just that: running them. You get the actual machines you want to compare, scrupulously make all the software as identical as possible, and let 'em rip. You DO NOT just grab random numbers generated by random software off a random website, no matter how impressive the numbers claim to be.

Re:What a load of lying malarkey (1)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | about 7 years ago | (#19757427)

By get[ting] the actual machines you want to compare, scrupulously make all the software as identical as possible, and let 'em rip, you mean building a standard performance testing tool-set and letting an impartial non-profit organization oversee the tests to ensure fairness?

That sounds like a really good idea... Why don't someone make one, and call it SPEO or something?

MUST? ( was Re:What a load of lying malarkey) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19757455)

I can compare eels to escalators if I want to. AMD just got called on a less than forthcoming comparison. Big deal. Corporate behavior as usual.

Re:What a load of lying malarkey (1)

edremy (36408) | about 7 years ago | (#19757467)

Then the ZDNet jerkoff has the gall to complain that AMD didn't use the latest SPEC.org numbers. Well, duh. RUNNING benchmarks means just that: running them. You get the actual machines you want to compare, scrupulously make all the software as identical as possible, and let 'em rip. You DO NOT just grab random numbers generated by random software off a random website, no matter how impressive the numbers claim to be.

You don't understand how SPEC works, do you? It's *not* a benchmark you just download and run and post the results everywhere. For a result to appear on SPEC's site, you have to buy the (expensive) suite, document everything about the machine, have SPEC vet the results and pay $500 a result to even appear in the tables. Core clock ratios and the rest matter not at all- all that matters is the final score on a set of tasks designed to mimic difficult real world problems.

In the world of scientific computing, SPEC numbers matter a lot when looking at machines, and vendors spend a lot of time trying to get to the top of the tables, but since the numbers are vetted by the organization, it's a *lot* harder to cheat. (Cheating tends to be more "Intel tuned their compiler to give good results on this part of the suite, but nobody else can use that optimization")

AMD is trying to pull a fast one here. As an AMD fan, I'm annoyed

I'm Totally Shocked! (2, Interesting)

smackenzie (912024) | about 7 years ago | (#19757289)

So, what you are trying to tell me is that some company called AMD is posting benchmarks using processors that won't ship for a while (ahem, Sun / Sony), probably using carefully selected benchmarks (ahem, Apple / Motorola / IBM / Sony), and probably bragging about certain carefully selected synthetic results (ahem, Apple / Sony / IBM / Motorola) in carefully selected applications (ahem, ENTIRE FAB INDUSTRY).

I only left Intel out because I'm typing this on a Core 2 and I'm scared that if I point out the numerous times they have done something similar then my computer will crap out on me.

Now, having said this, can we all admit that AMD seems to have lost quite a bit of their edge recently?

Deceptive Benchmarks? (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | about 7 years ago | (#19757293)

Can you say Oxymoron? I knew you could.

Re:Deceptive Benchmarks? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 7 years ago | (#19757571)

Can you say Oxymoron? I knew you could.

In this case, we want redundant (which I'm sure I'll get modded for this), not oxymoron.

An oxymoron would be something like "government intelligence" or "a little pregnant". Now, "Honest benchmark" when given by the vendor might be an oxymoron, "deceptive benchmark" is just a needless qualifier. :-P

Some links to brush up on here [oxymoronlist.com] and here [wikipedia.org]

Cheers

Re:Deceptive Benchmarks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19757579)

Indeed. A benchmark only has value if all the details are known and that 'value' is questionable in the first place. Management graphs do nothing for me. The article is a total waste. Its not even clear if these tests were done with a real 64bit OS.

If you have to run Windows, Intel will probably do better. On the other hand, to do what a computer is made to do -- crunch numbers, its AMD any day and in my experience has been so for the last few years. It really does matter if it 'super computing' or 'just mousing around'.
     

Re:Deceptive Benchmarks? (1)

niceone (992278) | about 7 years ago | (#19757591)

No, "Deceptive Benchmarks" is the opposite of an oxymoron - an nonoxymoron or noxymoron or maybe even oxysmartdude.

Re:Deceptive Benchmarks? (1)

jd (1658) | about 7 years ago | (#19757921)

A single benchmark, no matter how good or bad, gives you no meaningful information. It is neither honest nor deceptive, although it can be correct or incorrect. To get total coverage of a system with N characteristics, you must make at least N(N+1)/2 measurements of the system, isolating every combination in turn. (Characteristics not being measured need to be held to a fixed, known value.) Because profiles are more useful than isolated points, you really need at least three times as many measurements - three points being the minimum needed to define a curve.

In practice, this is not a viable approach. There are far too many characteristics, which would lead to there being a gigantic number of combinations. What's more, different systems will have different numbers of characteristics, making it very difficult to do a direct comparison. You can't just ignore the differences, as they may reflect more efficient ways to do something, which will lead to an inaccurate comparison.

Benchmarking with any kind of meaningful accuracy requires considerable skill in determining an efficient number of subsets of characteristics and the number of samples per characteristic you'll need to get a good idea of the shape. It is not something you do in an afternoon, except in a trivial case or unless you're not intending to be honest or accurate.

Let's take a typical CPU. How many variables are of interest? Well, you've how fast the various I/O lines operate (instructions, data, any additional busses), caching speed for the different levels of cache, the speed of the different units as a whole (ALU, FPU, and so on), the speed of the visible registers, the speed of the internal registers, the speed of the pipeline, the performance of the cache dropping algorithm, cache strain when using multiple cores and/or when hyperthreading, performance degradation with temperature (error rates, clock errors, etc), heat generated by instructions, the latency when tranfering between units, etc.

300 benchmarks should be sufficient to describe the processor, but who is going to publish that many stats? Or read them? I imagine that a well-chosen 50 should be sufficient and still be publishable.

Re:Deceptive Benchmarks? (1)

Ogive17 (691899) | about 7 years ago | (#19758191)

Not an oxymoron, it's just repetative.

Vista and its Blot makes Benchmarks Moot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19757307)

Look for the average Joe/Jain running IE, Outlook, Word, and Excel, the hairs breath of performance difference is indistinguishable from Intel or AMD to that of the bloated Vista OS.

DA JEWISH/EVIL ZIONIST FORCES BEHIND INTEL... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19757321)

fighting against the non-jewish owned AMD using their "signature" lying and brainwashing techniques through their control of mass media in USA.

The Only Benchmark that Matters for Most folks (1)

N8F8 (4562) | about 7 years ago | (#19757341)

Is the price/performance ratio. Intel is currently ahead in the CPU performance top-end but AMD is ahead in the price and GPU areas. Thinking of past history I would expect a "Coup de grâce" from AMD in the near future. They seem to be some clever folks over there at AMD.

Re:The Only Benchmark that Matters for Most folks (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 7 years ago | (#19757721)

Yep, nobody can copy intel in more clever way then the people at AMD.

"Coup de grâce" ... I think you mean "Core de grâce" ;)

Let's all scream FIRE! (5, Informative)

nick_davison (217681) | about 7 years ago | (#19757453)

From the comments on the original article:

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.

Re:Let's all scream FIRE! (1)

Trojan35 (910785) | about 7 years ago | (#19758141)

And this is why Blogs are a bad source of good journalism. Luckily, most news sources have editors to weed submissions like these out.

The Real Issue IS.. (1)

JohnnyOpcode (929170) | about 7 years ago | (#19757465)

Do you want Intel Core 2 Duo/Quad microcode bugs or do you want AMD Quad Barcelona (maybe with less or no bugs)! This chipwar is making me hold-off PC/Workstation purchases solely on this issue.

Re:The Real Issue IS.. (1)

Glasswire (302197) | about 7 years ago | (#19757911)

...or do you want AMD Quad Barcelona (maybe with less or no bugs)
Well, statistically, all other things being equal (which I'm sure you would not agree they are) it's much more likely that a new processor like Barcelona, which is in it's early steppings will have more errata than a processor architecture that has been shipping for a year and has gone through several steppings. Be careful of the comparisons you ask for.

Comparison points (2, Insightful)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about 7 years ago | (#19757501)

I'm interested in a side-by-side comparison at three points:

  1. Best against best. How do the current top-of-the-line CPUs from each company compare.
  2. Similar price points. If I'm willing to spend $X on a CPU, which company gives me the most performance for my money?
  3. Similar clock speeds. This is more a techie thing, gives me an idea of which company's wringing the most from each clock cycle in their chips. With current tech it's not a really reliable guide to which CPU to buy, but it gives me an idea of how their tech stacks up.

Re:Comparison points (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 7 years ago | (#19757677)

Price points based on what? dollar to Hz? Dollar to power consumed? Straight Dollar to dollar?

"This is more a techie thing, gives me an idea of which company's wringing the most from each clock cycle in their chips. "

This means almost nothing with todays chips. A well designed 2.5Ghz would be a better chip than a poorly designed 3GHz. what about duel/quad/infintium core chips?

Nobody is going to release a chip that isn't pushing comparable cycles anymore.

Re:Comparison points (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about 7 years ago | (#19757923)

Price points based on what? dollar to Hz? Dollar to power consumed? Straight Dollar to dollar?

Straight dollars. Essentially, if I spend $300, how much performance will that buy me from each company?

A well designed 2.5Ghz would be a better chip than a poorly designed 3GHz. what about duel/quad/infintium core chips?

Which is why I noted in that item that it's not a reliable guide for buying chips. There's a lot of things that affect performance anymore, FSB speed, FSB architecture, memory subsystem, cache, core interconnect, it gets slightly insane. But if you're a techie and like laying all that out on the table and analyzing it, it gets to be fairly interesting. I just wouldn't advise deciding on which chip to buy based on clock-speed-based comparisons (or any other single aspect, for that matter).

Re:Comparison points (1)

wolfemi1 (765089) | about 7 years ago | (#19757803)

I would like to add 4. Similar performance per watt consumed.

A Bit Tricky (1)

JamesRose (1062530) | about 7 years ago | (#19757521)

When you are shipping a chip in two motnhs, its pretty hard to do a bench mark, comparing your chip to a chip from a competitor which they wont let you have FOR TWO MONTHS! I mean, they can't very well compare their chip to a chip that hasn't been released, so they did the next best thing and compared it to the chips that are around, anyone who actually looks at bench marks seriously will take note, look at what it is comparing to, and of course consider how much further intel are likely to advance in the next 2 months, take the information they give and work with it, they aren't just going to present it in an unbiased way because they are trying to turn a profit.

Comparison By Price (1)

xero314 (722674) | about 7 years ago | (#19757533)

Maybe AMD used older Intel processors in the comparison because they wanted to compare processors of equal price. I don't know if that is the truth, but it certainly could be, which would then make the benchmarks realistic. Personally I don't care how fast the latest Intel Processor is unless it's performance per dollar is comparable to the latest AMD chips. This is part of why Apple moved away from IBM, which recently showed the fastest Micro Processors currently in existence, because even if IBM were to out perform Intel it would be at a much higher cost.

How about 4 sockets result? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19757569)

I can't find any Benchmark for 4 sockets machine here, so what's the point of this article?

I used to work at a very BIG IDC 2 years ago, the problems that made me sick at that time were noise and power consuming, especially power issue, you had to put less and less machines in a rack if you used a Intel CPU based ones. And this was the reason why I suggested my boss to switch from Intel to AMD and took 4 sockets machines instead of 2 sockets. Today AMD CPU based 4 sockets machines are still very popular at this IDC.

WSJ ads are from april (2, Informative)

nniillss (577580) | about 7 years ago | (#19757765)

According to this post [zdnet.com] , the comparisons, in particular the WSJ ads, are from april and at least the Intel numbers were correct at this time.

Re:WSJ ads are from april (1)

Glasswire (302197) | about 7 years ago | (#19757959)

And, of course the numbers for the AMD processor (which has not been released then or now) were just as unreal in April as they are today.

Re:WSJ ads are from april (1)

Glasswire (302197) | about 7 years ago | (#19758001)

Actually, did I understand you to say that AMD should only have compared processors which were available in April? I guess that means you can't compare processors which still aren't available in July either and there would be NO Barcelonas in the comparison at all.

Yea, and.... (1)

AetherBurner (670629) | about 7 years ago | (#19758097)

ZDNet introducing Pot to Kettle....Physician heal thyself. In reality, I prefer AMD over Intel any day. Everyone knows that benchmarks are rigged. Is this going to tilt my sale one way or another? Not at all. I have not bought a computer where I got to choose the make of processor in several years and I probably won't buy anything until my desktop draws 8's and Ace's. I have a feeling that websites that offer comparisons are biased as well. In God we trust, all others pay cash......

I think (1)

SlashDev (627697) | about 7 years ago | (#19758159)

companies SHOULD compare manufactured products compared to other manufactured products.

a video from AMD talking about comparing bench (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19758175)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>