Barcelona SPEC Scores Ruled Non-Compliant

[Phynaz]

Oops.

 

[Viditor]

This makes sense. I had a feeling that IBM had screwed up their SPEC submission...the numbers were too low.

 

[GreenChile]

Originally posted by: Viditor
This makes sense. I had a feeling that IBM had screwed up their SPEC submission...the numbers were too low.

Barcelona hasn't lived up to the hype, face it. Yields are so bad they can't even satisfy commitments. Clock speed is so low K8 may actually out perform K10. IPC is still not even close to Core. AMD can shove it for lieing to get our hopes up only to disappoint.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Viditor
This makes sense. I had a feeling that IBM had screwed up their SPEC submission...the numbers were too low.

Except the numbers are fine. That's not why they are non-compliant. Which you would have known had you bothered to actually read the linked document.

And BTW, the test was submitted by AMD.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Viditor
This makes sense. I had a feeling that IBM had screwed up their SPEC submission...the numbers were too low.

Except the numbers are fine. That's not why they are non-compliant. Which you would have known had you bothered to actually read the linked document.

They are non-compliant because they didn't meet the "3 month availability
requirement in the SPEC CPU2006 run rules due to a change in the
availability date of the system".
The reason this also effects the numbers is that in order to get the SPEC release out in time and assume availability, they obviously used the B1 rev chip instead of the BA chip.

Edit: and BTW, where did you see AMD in the submission form?

 

[GreenChile]

One nasty rumor floating around suggested that AMD canceled the event because CEO Hector Ruiz plans to announce his resignation next week.

Link

Awww one can only hope

 

[Phynaz]

LOL, thanks for the laugh.

So now BA is the miracle chip!

If nothing else, you are predictable.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: TestToasterOwn

One nasty rumor floating around suggested that AMD canceled the event because CEO Hector Ruiz plans to announce his resignation next week.

Link

Awww one can only hope

I loved this quote:

""We are going to be annoying as hell," Taylor vowed, talking about AMD's public relations counteroffensive set to be unleashed as the Penryn chips arrive."

Intel launches new chips, AMD admits all they are going to do is talk some more.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: TestToasterOwn

One nasty rumor floating around suggested that AMD canceled the event because CEO Hector Ruiz plans to announce his resignation next week.

Link

Awww one can only hope

I loved this quote:

""We are going to be annoying as hell," Taylor vowed, talking about AMD's public relations counteroffensive set to be unleashed as the Penryn chips arrive."

Intel launches new chips, AMD admits all they are going to do is talk some more.

Can you explain what this made-up drivel has to do with the subject at hand?
And I noticed you didn't answer the question...only gave a snide non-denial denial.
Hmmm...predictable?

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: TestToasterOwn

One nasty rumor floating around suggested that AMD canceled the event because CEO Hector Ruiz plans to announce his resignation next week.

Link

Awww one can only hope

I loved this quote:

""We are going to be annoying as hell," Taylor vowed, talking about AMD's public relations counteroffensive set to be unleashed as the Penryn chips arrive."

Intel launches new chips, AMD admits all they are going to do is talk some more.

Can you explain what this made-up drivel has to do with the subject at hand?
And I noticed you didn't answer the question...only gave a snide non-denial denial.
Hmmm...predictable?

Made up? Actual quotes from AMD PR people?
Yeah, okay.

The reason why I didn't answer your questions is because it gets rather tiring having to constantly repeat myself.

One more time:

READ THE LINK

Now read it again, slowly. Is it sinking in yet?

 

[bfdd]

Thanks

Anandtech Moderator - KP

 

[Phynaz]

Sounds like somebody is about to get a break from posting.

 

[bryanW1995]

lol. his fingers were probably tired anyway.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Made up? Actual quotes from AMD PR people?
Yeah, okay.

The reason why I didn't answer your questions is because it gets rather tiring having to constantly repeat myself.

One more time:

READ THE LINK

Now read it again, slowly. Is it sinking in yet?

I see...if you add a quote from an AMD guy, it makes everything else real?

I read the link...it's an IBM system (an x3455), designed, sponsored, and submitted by IBM and tested by AMD. Is there some secret code in there that only you can see?

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Viditor
This makes sense. I had a feeling that IBM had screwed up their SPEC submission...the numbers were too low.

Except the numbers are fine. That's not why they are non-compliant. Which you would have known had you bothered to actually read the linked document.

And BTW, the test was submitted by AMD.

I don't know, I can't read the link because some idiot put retarded wallpaper on it making it impossible for a normal person to read.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Made up? Actual quotes from AMD PR people?
Yeah, okay.

The reason why I didn't answer your questions is because it gets rather tiring having to constantly repeat myself.

One more time:

READ THE LINK

Now read it again, slowly. Is it sinking in yet?

I see...if you add a quote from an AMD guy, it makes everything else real?

I read the link...it's an IBM system (an x3455), designed, sponsored, and submitted by IBM and tested by AMD. Is there some secret code in there that only you can see?

You're getting warmer. Perhaps you should read the SPEC submission rules.

But whatever. The point is, due to AMD's inability to supply chips, IBM now has egg on it's face.

Pissing off IBM is probably not a good thing to do.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Made up? Actual quotes from AMD PR people?
Yeah, okay.

The reason why I didn't answer your questions is because it gets rather tiring having to constantly repeat myself.

One more time:

READ THE LINK

Now read it again, slowly. Is it sinking in yet?

I see...if you add a quote from an AMD guy, it makes everything else real?

I read the link...it's an IBM system (an x3455), designed, sponsored, and submitted by IBM and tested by AMD. Is there some secret code in there that only you can see?

You're getting warmer. Perhaps you should read the SPEC submission rules.

I have read the SPEC submission rules many times...have you ever read them? For example, in this case the rules state:
"The test sponsor can, with the subcommittee's approval of the text, add additional wording into a remedy section. The remedy section can for example, identify the part that is not available, contain the reason for non-availability, and/or an estimate when all components of the SUT are expected to be available again. If and when the SUT becomes available, the submitter may notify the subcommittee that the product is available. With the Subcommittee's agreement, the NA marking will be removed from the result page, however the page will retain the notice that the page was marked NA along with the history of the NA marking. This restarts the clock for the continuous availability requirement covered in this section"

 

[myocardia]

How much are you guys' weekly paychecks from AMD and Intel? I'm sure you've told me before, but I must have forgotten.

 

[Griswold]

Originally posted by: myocardia
How much are you guys' weekly paychecks from AMD and Intel? I'm sure you've told me before, but I must have forgotten.

Well, as for Phynaz, he's probably not clever enough to charge the blue team any money for his services - call it unnecessary charity work.