Give me a reason to go AMD... I WANT TO BELIEVE.

[Durvelle27]

 

[Mallibu]

Oh, you have some proof of this do you? Let's have it! Name some names! Or is this yet another bullshit baseless accusation? Because if that's what you're after, alienbabeltech is that way ---->

I wouldn't be shocked if it was true. Look at this guy, galego, spending so many hours writing pro-AMD & anti-Intel lies, exaggerations and conspiracies, in every thread with 0 objectivity. I can't believe someone doesn't have anything better to do with his time, than do this whole AMD obsessed marketing campaign just because he likes company x/y. If it does though, it's kinda sad.

 

[Mallibu]

Oh, you have some proof of this do you? Let's have it! Name some names! Or is this yet another bullshit baseless accusation? Because if that's what you're after, alienbabeltech is that way ---->

I wouldn't be shocked if it was true. Look at this guy, galego, spending so many hours writing pro-AMD & anti-Intel lies, exaggerations and conspiracies, in every thread with 0 objectivity. I can't believe someone doesn't have anything better to do with his time, than do this whole AMD obsessed marketing campaign just because he is a fan of a corporation that gives zero shit about him. If it does though, it's kinda sad.

 

[mrmt]

I wouldn't be shocked if it was true. Look at this guy, galego, spending so many hours writing pro-AMD & anti-Intel lies, exaggerations and conspiracies, in every thread with 0 objectivity. I can't believe someone doesn't have anything better to do with his time, than do this whole AMD obsessed marketing campaign just because he likes company x/y. If it does though, it's kinda sad.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

 

[Face2Face]

I don't think AMD or Intel employees would waste their time arguing about stuff fanboys only argue about..

 

[Mallibu]

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

I'm leaning towards that too. It's just that I just find it difficult to believe that someone is happy spending all day writing pro-corporate-x & anti-corporate-y propaganda bullshit.

 

[thilanliyan]

I'm leaning towards that too. It's just that I just find it difficult to believe that someone is happy spending all day writing pro-corporate-x & anti-corporate-y propaganda bullshit.

You should hit up the video card forum more often...happens all the time there lol. 😀

 

[Xpage]

I find the fanboyism so amusing, I read threads like this to see who can go crazier. I just want a competitive market, descent prices, and good 10-20% improvements on performance each new generation of chips.

 

[galego]

Like the decreased efficiency compared to IVB? Or your 57% more efficient number?

I am not going to write a detailed comment on their new 'review'. My only and main point was that now they give a more reasonable power consumption in agreement with my previous claims when I did a relatively detailed comment of their first review.

Only a pair of comments on their new review. The hardware for the FX is now the same than before except the memory brand. The main change is the different version of the x264 that they use now. The FX is now, magically, about a 30% slower than before. But I know the FX is faster than both the 3770k and the 4770k on x264 tests.

That supposed decreased performance of the same hardware is so unreal like their previous 100W delta claim.

 

[mrmt]

I am not going to write a detailed comment on their new 'review'. My only and main point was that now they give a more reasonable power consumption in agreement with my previous claims when I did a relatively detailed comment of their first review.

Of course you won't. You are too good for that.

Only a pair of comments on their new review. The hardware for the FX is now the same than before except the memory brand. The main change is the different version of the x264 that they use now. The FX is now, magically, about a 30% slower than before. But I know the FX is faster than both the 3770k and the 4770k on x264 tests.


That supposed decreased performance of the same hardware is so unreal like their previous 100W delta claim.

So let's try to follow your rationale here:

- You say that techreport tests are biased, but you aren't ashamed to use openbenchmark, which has instructions supported only for AMD (FMA4, XOP), and with that you invalidates the techreport results. Maybe the open in the same makes it automatically neutral, correct?

- On top of that, you take a 100W delta in peak performance in a given setup and compares with a 76W from another setup, disregarding that the two setups are different and that they provide different performance results.

- Joining the two you magically conclude that Techreport review is flawed, biased and that that the 100W delta is fault of poor review practices.

- And you still refuse to disclose from which dark hole you pulled out that 57% number.

 

[Abwx]

- You say that techreport tests are biased, but you aren't ashamed to use openbenchmark, which has instructions supported only for AMD (FMA4, XOP), and with that you invalidates the techreport results. Maybe the open in the same makes it automatically neutral, correct?

.

I never heard you complaining about Sysmark , isnt it ,
neither against Excel wich was "optimized" by intel itself.
Of course that intel publicly advise Cinema 4D as being
optimsed for their CPU , all this doesnt matter provided
it benefit to the firm you obviously are proping up.

 

[Abwx]

Oh, you have some proof of this do you? Let's have it! Name some names! Or is this yet another bullshit baseless accusation? Because if that's what you're after, alienbabeltech is that way ---->

The most basic understanding would point that AMD being
a tenth of intel there will be statisticaly 10 intel employees
for 1 AMD employee in this forum , there s no reason that
people of either firm have a higher tendency to waste
their time in heated forums , it seems that somme people
do not realize this and use arguments that are irrelevant
from the start , but hey , they must say something.

 

[galego]

So let's try to follow your rationale here:

- You say that techreport tests are biased, but you aren't ashamed to use openbenchmark, which has instructions supported only for AMD (FMA4, XOP), and with that you invalidates the techreport results. Maybe the open in the same makes it automatically neutral, correct?

- On top of that, you take a 100W delta in peak performance in a given setup and compares with a 76W from another setup, disregarding that the two setups are different and that they provide different performance results.

- Joining the two you magically conclude that Techreport review is flawed, biased and that that the 100W delta is fault of poor review practices.

- And you still refuse to disclose from which dark hole you pulled out that 57% number.

NO.

Openbenchmarks are not biased. The code is even open!

The tests are individually optimized for each chip. Each one of the tests extract the best possible from each chip (within compilers implementation limits of course).

They use neutral compilers (without the Cripple_AMD function). In that particular review the FX chip was in disadvantage because the compiler used then was ignoring several piledriver optimizations regarding the BMI, TBM, F16C, and FMA3 capabilities of the FX chip.

Of course openbenchmarks are radically different to well-known biased benchmarks such as sysmark, cinebench, and others.

The first TR review was clearly unprofessional. Look to my comments. They did everything possible, and more, to improve the performance and power efficiency of intel chips in the biased comparison with AMD FX.

The hardware used for the FX-3850 is the same in both TR reviews except the memory brand. Therefore, yes, I can compare the power consumption (they used the same power meter as well) and the 196W original reduced to the current 176W. 176W is still a bit high but much more close to normal values.

This second TR review continues being unprofessional, not to mention that using the same hardware now, the FX chip is magically a 30% slower than before. If they did the review right they would see how the old FX-8350 is faster than the i7-4770k on the same test.

Efficiency follows from using the real performance and real power consumption. Not from magically slower chips and fabricated 200W.

I will not explain this to you again.

 

[Maximilian]

Haswell was pretty meh, theres a good reason to go AMD :thumbsup:

 

[tential]

Of course you won't. You are too good for that.




So let's try to follow your rationale here:

- You say that techreport tests are biased, but you aren't ashamed to use openbenchmark, which has instructions supported only for AMD (FMA4, XOP), and with that you invalidates the techreport results. Maybe the open in the same makes it automatically neutral, correct?

- On top of that, you take a 100W delta in peak performance in a given setup and compares with a 76W from another setup, disregarding that the two setups are different and that they provide different performance results.

- Joining the two you magically conclude that Techreport review is flawed, biased and that that the 100W delta is fault of poor review practices.

- And you still refuse to disclose from which dark hole you pulled out that 57% number.

Read his signature and comments over at the video card forums. He's pretty open about his AMD fanboyism. I like AMD, but I think their best chance to get ahead was Athlon 64, and intel destroyed them with good marketing.

 

[frozentundra123456]

You should hit up the video card forum more often...happens all the time there lol. 😀

I spend more time on the cpu forums than the video card one, but TBH, compared to these cpu forums, VC and G seems a model of objectivity.

 

[galego]

Read his signature and comments over at the video card forums. He's pretty open about his AMD fanboyism.

I am ignoring the 99% of posts like this. But I will explain my signature.

I can build a top gaming PC using only AMD parts (e.g. FX and Radeon), but I cannot do that using only Intel (lacking dGPUs) or only Nvidia (lacking X86 CPUs). You need Intel plus AMD or Intel plus Nvidia.

 

[pcunite]

I can build a top gaming PC using only AMD parts (e.g. FX and Radeon), but I cannot do that using only Intel (lacking dGPUs) or only Nvidia (lacking X86 CPUs). You need Intel plus AMD or Intel plus Nvidia.

That is an interesting point ... becaues AMD bought out ATi. But I've always been partial to nVidia anyway.

 

[Mallibu]

I am ignoring the 99% of posts like this. But I will explain my signature.

I can build a top gaming PC using only AMD parts (e.g. FX and Radeon), but I cannot do that using only Intel (lacking dGPUs) or only Nvidia (lacking X86 CPUs). You need Intel plus AMD or Intel plus Nvidia.

And I can buy Intel CPU & Intel SSD, but with AMD I'll need to buy samsung for example.
Therefore it takes AMD & Samsung to match Intel.
Nice brainfart attack you're having over there.

 

[Ayah]

And I can buy Intel CPU & Intel SSD, but with AMD I'll need to buy samsung for example.
Therefore it takes AMD & Samsung to match Intel.
Nice brainfart attack you're having over there.

You forgot to add that AMD can't produce anything from silicon. They need GloFo or TSMC or another fab.
Edit: Oh yeah, in a pure AMD rig, you don't have a network connection. I'm disregarding parts that neither produce.

 

[krumme]

I am ignoring the 99% of posts like this. But I will explain my signature.

I can build a top gaming PC using only AMD parts (e.g. FX and Radeon), but I cannot do that using only Intel (lacking dGPUs) or only Nvidia (lacking X86 CPUs). You need Intel plus AMD or Intel plus Nvidia.

So you prefer a world with only one company...

 

[Abwx]

That is an interesting point ... becaues AMD bought out ATi. But I've always been partial to nVidia anyway.

That explain that you can believe in such myths :

I like AMD, but I think their best chance to get ahead was Athlon 64, and intel destroyed them with good marketing.

And some here still pretend that Galego is of bad faith....

 

[NTMBK]

I like AMD, but I think their best chance to get ahead was Athlon 64, and intel destroyed them with good marketing.

Well I guess those bribes probably came out of the marketing budget...

 

[mrmt]

NO.

Openbenchmarks are not biased. The code is even open!

Yes, that's what doesn't fit in your fanboi head.

With ICC and with Openbenchmark I'm not taking a piece of code, running and comparing the results, because in both cases I'm taking different pieces of code and running.

The difference between ICC and Openbenchmark is that the former will check for Intel processors and then run the best code path, while the latter will check for the instruction on the processor and then run the code according to the instructions found. But in both cases you have two different codes running in two different processors.

Phoronix and other postures in using the thing doesn't help. They don't compile the thing without AMD or Intel exclusive instructions or at least compare the two scenarios (This is the results without FMA4/XOP, this is with FMA4/XOP), or this is the best AMD case (GCC with XOP/FMA) vs Intel best case (ICC). What they truly end is just "the best case for AMD and Intel processors using GPL software", which is an irrelevant metric for 99% of the people.

In the end, what you have is just a different kind of bias, just because you show the source code and slap an "open" in the name of your benchmark doesn't mean you are neutral.

The hardware used for the FX-3850 is the same in both TR reviews except the memory brand. Therefore, yes, I can compare the power consumption (they used the same power meter as well) and the 196W original reduced to the current 176W. 176W is still a bit high but much more close to normal values.

The hardware can be anything, the fact is that the performance characteristics of the two rigs is vastly different, hence the comparison is invalid. Stop being such a prick and check the numbers again.

 

[mrmt]

You forgot to add that AMD can't produce anything from silicon. They need GloFo or TSMC or another fab.
Edit: Oh yeah, in a pure AMD rig, you don't have a network connection. I'm disregarding parts that neither produce.

Do you have an AMD-designed SSD too?