One of the more common "hardware intensive" applications for consumers is video and audio en/decoding. I have found AMD to be superior (like 2x) in these applications. This activity is typically done by me at home under horribly prejudicial circumstances. Two computers sitting side by side are often employed to do the same task at the same time. At work I do mostly CAD, programming, Excel, and other engineering type stuff and the computers that I've used have been 100% Intel. This is typically because Intel generally seems to win the clock speed award and our IT department likes things like "3GHz is faster than 1.8 Ghz." When my oldest graduated from high school several years ago I took a old copy of Performance Test "Passmark" that was bundled with some Norton stuff into fry's and measured what was on the floor (and in my price range). A Toshiba laptop with a 3.2GHz (as I recall) Pentium 4 won the day.
I guess we need a review of the performance tools...
From the BAPCo Spokesman:
"BAPCo fired back with a statement of its own later in the day which claimed that AMD supported more than 80 percent of the SM2012 development milestones..."
If AMD and Intel do not agree to 100% then the benchmarks are simply USELESS since far less than 20% of a companies CPU or GPU extensions could mean the difference between looking extremely fast or slow.
This has ALWAYS been biased toward Intel and now that AMD has resigned from the SysMark Panel it pretty well makes SysMark a tool for only distinguishing one Intel system from another.
This is LONG overdue since Intel has always held the cards (including the ones up their sleeves) in the SysMark Benchmark.
SysMark has now made itself meaningless and I sure wouldn't put out money for it, nor will I rely on their results.
Word is that AMD engineering considers this false politicking on the part of its own management - driven more as attempt to make poor performing CPU's look less poor than from driving some real-world performance value from its fushion graphics APU.
I wonder why AMD would have joined in the first place? I buy PCs for home and work and have never looked at the benchmarks. I wonder if anybody really cares (except marketers?). I have often thought of AMD as the most cost effective tradeoff between price and performance, Intel has performance but at a higher overall price (in my limited experience - but perception drives future buying decisions).
benchmarks were all the time selective by their specific design. if you know your targets then you are more or less able to favour one target and let another drop in values up to some degree.
running homogenous tests by principle is correct as it reflects some of the use cases.
running in-homogenous tests by principle is correct as well as it reflects some of the use cases.
as todays use cases include both scenarios its up to the user to decide which particular use case will match better to which of the available test cases. if one of the major test cases is not made available then this is definitely a lack that conflicts with the interests of the user for doing a solid choice on his own.
i suppose AMD is assuming it would have a some advantage for their models in the currently left out test cases. it must not be that AMD is the fastest even in that cases but it might be the case that for users that care about price/performance ratio (or efficiency or total cost of ownership) this could contribute to a significant design win for AMD.
what would you do if you have joint a group that does stick to what it has and wont move ahead into providing things that you requested for simple and sane reasons (amongst others things that those group generally does). a group that is "marketing intel products" and nothing else whilst revoking giving the end user the tools for doing the best choice is probably something AMD does not see any sense in.
Looking towards this kind of concerns and fights it seems that the future will come up with a complete solution provider for both the hardware and software, I see the merger of ARM and Google for this scenario.
As you have mentioned, AMD might have opted out of BAPco because they are afraid of Intel...possible. But again, in the recent past AMD was seen to be successful in grabbing some (small for Intel) market share from Intel and they should be rather confident than being afraid.
Another thought occurs to me, can we just eliminate the possibility of AMD being suspicious about Intel's influence on BAPco, which could be obviously greater, given the fact that Intel still holds 80% of the market share and they could see an increasing threat from AMD in the PC market?
Warren- thanks for pointing out those typos. Apologies to all for that.
I'm curious what people think of this whole ruckus. Is this just sour grapes on the part of AMD or do they have a legit beef? Will they be able to persuade others to form a rival consortium?