My, my, my...the furor that i5 causes, esp. at AMDZone......(read: censorship)

[Beanie46]

So, AMD Zone was having a rather spirited discussion about the i5/i7 release of yesterday.

Typical bashing of any website that put the Intel cpus in a good light....all the review sites are Intel shills, being paid off by Intel, all the benchmarking software is bought and paid for by Intel so that's why AMD chips come out second best and you cannot trust any benchmarks done with Photoshop, Cinebench, Divx, and the list goes on.....

It got to seven pages, 154 posts when in steps The_Ghost, one of the admins, says "took out the trash" and proceeds to delete 49 posts from the discussion, essentially any dissenting opinion of AMD or its cpus or post defending Anandtech or any other website that tested the i5/i7 and got positive findings.

This is how the page looks now, after the "trash" was taken out.


This is how the page looked before the "trash" was censored out.


Sorry, only got page 1 of the discussion, but THAT's how to run a web forum!

Anyone posting something you disagree with? DELETE it! That'll show 'em!

AMD RULEZ!!!!

 

[daw123]

I'm not surprised. I saw the usual suspects in that post: abinstein and AussieFX.

Oh and then The_Ghost steps in and censors all the posts supporting Intel.

It makes you wonder who are the ones being paid by a CPU manufacturer to spread (usually) bullsh*t (or exaggerated) claims about their sponsors products, whilst slamming their sponsor's competitors.

These guys would make love to their AMD CPU if it had an orifice to enable them to do so.

It just shows what a nonsensical forum AMDZone is. At least on AT you get uncensored flame wars between the fanbois.

 

[dmens]

I'm wondering why a supposedly genuine AMD employee would post there under the name "JF-AMD". Seems unwise to have "official representation" at the nuthouse.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Thats funny. So every website and all benchmarks are taking money under the table? What a joke!

 

[michael19]

and AMD Zone is taking money under the table from AMD to put *their* processors in the spotlight...

 

[Beanie46]

What I don't understand is the insistence that entire suites of benchmarking programs are totally biased towards Intel.....Photoshop, Cinebench, Everest, SYSMark, DivX, 3DMark, Windows Media Encoder, Nero, 3dsmax, Blender, Microsoft Office suite, Sony Vegas Pro, WinRAR, Crysis, FarCry 2, Left 4 Dead.....any of the commerical applications or benching software that EVERYONE uses to bench cpus.

Instead, they insist that there are "many, many" other alternatives to the above, of course, with never spelling out what they are, just that Intel has bought and sold every bit of commercial software during development, so using any biases any testing of cpus with them towards Intel and makes AMD cpus look bad (as if AMD wasn't doing well enough on its own.) This, of course, flies in the face of testing done previously in years past when AMD was kicking Intel's little bum up and down the street with the Athlon X2 64 cpus.

Just simply mind boggling what does and doesn't pass as bias over there.........

 

[Phynaz]

Yeah, I've watching over there for a couple of days.

Amazing that they can whip themselves up to believing an X3 is faster than an I5.


Look for the replies to the poster "S939". He's a regular and when he tries to tell them how the world outside of the zone may perceive them, they turn on him.

And talk about a horrible "clean up" job. Ghost deleted all the dissenting opinions, but then left all the deleted text in the quoted replies. What a Moron.

Funny, for an AMD fansite they spend most of their time talking about Intel

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Wow, and they didn't even do a good job censoring. Half the posts that were deleted out were quoted by somebody else, and still remain. It's even in the first few posts. Here at least when the mods decide they want to censor stuff to support their agenda and push Obama's goal of socialism and indoctrination of our youth... oh crap I'm not in P&N... Nevermind.

In all seriousness though, the mods here at least remove all quotes of the offending comment as well. If you're going to remove stuff due to ToS, rules, or just because you don't agree with it, please remove all quotes of said comment.

 

[michael19]

Fun little thing to think about:

So lets believe for a second that Intel has made all these programs intel friendly and so they in fact do run faster on intel chips.
sooooo then why not get an intel because it runs a boat load of software products faster?
even if intel did give them some $ to make it that way, who cares, the end result is a faster program.

 

[Beanie46]

Originally posted by: daw123

These guys would make love to their AMD CPU if it had an orifice to enable them to do so.

No, in reality I'd think those guys dream about their AMD chips developing a phallic member so they could bend over and get some real AMD lovin'.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Beanie46

Originally posted by: daw123

These guys would make love to their AMD CPU if it had an orifice to enable them to do so.

No, in reality I'd think those guys dream about their AMD chips developing a phallic member so they could bend over and get some real AMD lovin'.

How do they not feel foolish? Saying the things they say are truly representative of some sort of insanity or a disorder. But I can't figure out the mass hysteria though.. A "Zoner" if you will.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: Beanie46
Instead, they insist that there are "many, many" other alternatives to the above, of course, with never spelling out what they are, just that Intel has bought and sold every bit of commercial software during development, so using any biases any testing of cpus with them towards Intel and makes AMD cpus look bad (as if AMD wasn't doing well enough on its own.) This, of course, flies in the face of testing done previously in years past when AMD was kicking Intel's little bum up and down the street with the Athlon X2 64 cpus.

they were looking at this review

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...e&item=intel_lynnfield

where they had a bunch of really shady results. for example, this page had a bench on audio encoding where X3 710 was almost 2X faster than the 870 lynnfield, which makes no sense whatsoever and can only be attributed to faulty testing.

another outrageous example shows X3 710 serving up almost triple the number of SQL transactions as a i7 920, and the i5 750 beating both i7 920 and 870. a little strange since database software is a highlight benchmark of the nehalem architecture, and the 920 has way more memory bandwidth than the other machines.

but to the loons at amdzone, nothing wrong with those results. :roll:

 

[mozartrules]

There is actually a benign reason why some benchmarks may favor Intel. Intel makes an excellent compiler with optimizations for all the latest processor. I do benchmarking of such stuff at work and ICC is simply generating better code than Microsoft and GNU. The compiler is $599 and the other two are cheap/free, but people making software where performance really matters will typically use ICC (we do). I don't know whether the typical benchmark programs are compiled with ICC though.

 

[OCGuy]

The worst part is when the Zoners register here and post in the CPU/GPU forums. I've noticed they have a low post count and only come around near launches.

They are waaaaaay out there, but easy to spot.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Beanie46
What I don't understand is the insistence that entire suites of benchmarking programs are totally biased towards Intel.....Photoshop, Cinebench, Everest, SYSMark, DivX, 3DMark, Windows Media Encoder, Nero, 3dsmax, Blender, Microsoft Office suite, Sony Vegas Pro, WinRAR, Crysis, FarCry 2, Left 4 Dead.....any of the commerical applications or benching software that EVERYONE uses to bench cpus.

Instead, they insist that there are "many, many" other alternatives to the above, of course, with never spelling out what they are, just that Intel has bought and sold every bit of commercial software during development, so using any biases any testing of cpus with them towards Intel and makes AMD cpus look bad (as if AMD wasn't doing well enough on its own.) This, of course, flies in the face of testing done previously in years past when AMD was kicking Intel's little bum up and down the street with the Athlon X2 64 cpus.

Just simply mind boggling what does and doesn't pass as bias over there.........

To be fair, many programs are Intel optimized, but that's just the way the market is. Algorithms are designed around Intel's cache structure and not AMD's, and Intel's compiler is the best of the market. Not only does it optimize for Intel, but it also turns off all optimizations/extensions for AMD, and definitely doesn't use any AMD exclusive optimization.

This is nothing new though. Back in the day, it was interesting to see games that included AMD optimized paths, as opposed to just an Intel one (even if Intel optimizations were enabled on AMD). Quake 3 originally favored Intel slightly but after people took the source code and made an AMD optimized version, it swung strongly toward AMD. Serious Sam has an AMD optimized path and runs better on Athlon XP than P4. I believe the older Unreal based games did as well (maybe the newer ones too).

But by and far, the market is Intel optimized, so unless you're on Linux hand compiling everything, it's kind of moot to worry about whether a program is "Intel optimized" or not. If a program you want to run runs poorly on a processor, then that processor isn't a good choice. If a change in compiler could fix it, then AMD really needs to step up dev relations.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

This is our z-o-n-e *draws imaginary line around self*

Just the self justification that this ZONE belongs to AMD forwards the wrong message.

 

[Cookie Monster]

They really do put AMD in a bad light. Man I almost lost my sanity reading that.

How embarrassing.

 

[veri745]

I consider myself an AMD fan of sorts, but those guys are nuts.

The censoring is ridiculous, but you can't exactly expect an intel-supporting "troll" to be welcomed at a forum with AMD in the name.

They did such a poor job with the censor, I was wondering if maybe they meant to removing all the "original" posts and just leave the quoted version

 

[imported_smyrgl]

As the person who was responsible for most of that shitstorm, I find it hillarious that they felt that my posts were so damaging that they felt the need to not only ban me but to erase the record of my posting history.

TheGhost's final response to me was especially hilarious since he didn't even bother to provide a rebuttal aside from "You're wrong, la la la la la la!".

EDIT: Also, I encourage everyone to read the thread in its entirety and answer for THEMSELVES who is acting more rationally. It's a pretty bad sign when an infrequent poster/lurker makes a total ass out of the moderating staff of the website. The funny thing was, I wasn't there to make anyone look foolish, just to have a reasoned debate about the facts. However, it's clear that there is no reasoning with most of the people on AMDZone.

 

[imported_smyrgl]

Originally posted by: veri745
The censoring is ridiculous, but you can't exactly expect an intel-supporting "troll" to be welcomed at a forum with AMD in the name.

Sorry, but what I did wasn't trolling, it was just disagreeing with the prevailing opinion. Trolling would be coming in and making totally unsupported statements, whereas I made sure to backup everything I said with facts and objective data.

Not that what I did was that hard. It's a lot easier to win an argument when you take an easily supportable position (such as Lynnfield being a great processor) and your opponent has an incredibly hard to support position (that Lynnfield is not superior to Phenom II and in fact is no threat whatsoever). That's one of the things that most people don't realize about debate: not all debate subjects are equal and a lesser debater can often win a debate against a superior adversary if he is good about picking which side of a topic to be on.

Not that the debate quality on AMDZone was all that good mind you.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: smyrgl

Originally posted by: veri745
The censoring is ridiculous, but you can't exactly expect an intel-supporting "troll" to be welcomed at a forum with AMD in the name.

Sorry, but what I did wasn't trolling, it was just disagreeing with the prevailing opinion. Trolling would be coming in and making totally unsupported statements, whereas I made sure to backup everything I said with facts and objective data.

Not that what I did was that hard. It's a lot easier to win an argument when you take an easily supportable position (such as Lynnfield being a great processor) and your opponent has an incredibly hard to support position (that Lynnfield is not superior to Phenom II and in fact is no threat whatsoever). That's one of the things that most people don't realize about debate: not all debate subjects are equal and a lesser debater can often win a debate against a superior adversary if he is good about picking which side of a topic to be on.

Not that the debate quality on AMDZone was all that good mind you.

I mean, they can't "not know" how stupid they appear. Can they? :::shudders:::

 

[imported_smyrgl]

Believe it or not, I had a much higher opinion of them before that particular thread. I'd gotten into a debate in the past with one of their regulars (scientia) about a few points and although he ignored the rules of logical debate, he at least was consistent and answered points. The most recent debate consisted of basically 2nd grade debate tactics of "I know you are but what am I?" remarks.

 

[IlllI]

a. who cares
b. what does this have to do with anandtech

 

[veri745]

Originally posted by: smyrgl

Originally posted by: veri745
The censoring is ridiculous, but you can't exactly expect an intel-supporting "troll" to be welcomed at a forum with AMD in the name.

Sorry, but what I did wasn't trolling, it was just disagreeing with the prevailing opinion. Trolling would be coming in and making totally unsupported statements, whereas I made sure to backup everything I said with facts and objective data.

I know, but they obviously thought you were a troll since you got banned/deleted; that's why I put "troll" in quotes.

 

[Arkaign]

HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

Rational poster : "Let's try this again: What percentage of the market has a single/dual core processor (but not a quad) AND is compatible with a Phenom II drop in upgrade? Until you answer this you flail about in the dark accomplishing nothing."

MDK777 : "60-80% I would guess. I don't have the numbers. It is 100% of AM3 + and 100% AM2+ and even a percentage of AM2. This is over 5 years!

The number of 755 boards you can install a CORE I5 into = 0%
The number of 1366 boards you can install a CORE I5 into =0%

This also is the majority of INTEL boards sold into retail over the last 5 years.

60-80% verses 0%

Why you don't know this is beyond me, everyone who thinks they know about computing should know these facts and not require someone to explain it to them."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What total fucking idiots. AM2 didn't launch until mid 2006 (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=2741&p=9) .. that means that AM2 is barely 3 years old, and furthermore, only a small portion of 1st-year AM2 mobos are capable of running 45nm PhII quads, if you can even get a bios update for them.

Smyrgl, you should post here more often, at least a decent number of people have brains in their skulls. I have a PhII 805 at 3.5ghz, but I'm not gonna try and tell someone that AMD is better all the while making shit up out of thin air. 5 years of AM2 + Quad compatibility my ass. 5 years ago was 2004, Socket 939 was only a year old, and Socket 754 was just getting going with single-core consumer options, AM2 was a ways off.