Nvidia/AMD/VIA leave Sysmark company Bapco

[piesquared]

Ferrari must not have gotten the memo to use sysmark for hardware evalation, and proves it's irrelevancy in emerging technology.

http://video.itworldcanada.com/?bcpid=7044989001&bctid=1017555734001

 

[Idontcare]

Ferrari must not have gotten the memo to use sysmark for hardware evalation, and proves it's irrelevancy in emerging technology.

http://video.itworldcanada.com/?bcpid=7044989001&bctid=1017555734001

AMD has been an official Ferrari sponsor for over 9 yrs now.

http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/Press_Release_14565.aspx

Little bit of a contractual conflict of interest there in terms of Ferrari endorsing AMD products...that's kinda the point of being a sponsor, quid quo pro and all that.

It would be really sad if Ferrari didn't use AMD products, and one would hope that Ferrari certainly does get the memo's from AMD asking them to not use Sysmark.

 

[piesquared]

AMD has been an official Ferrari sponsor for over 9 yrs now.

http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/Press_Release_14565.aspx

Little bit of a contractual conflict of interest there in terms of Ferrari endorsing AMD products...that's kinda the point of being a sponsor, quid quo pro and all that.

It would be really sad if Ferrari didn't use AMD products, and one would hope that Ferrari certainly does get the memo's from AMD asking them to not use Sysmark.

Of course they've been sponsoring them for many years, that's well known. Don't you suppose though that the people at Ferrari are smart enough to purchase hardware that meets their demands. If Sysmark was a good tool to guage their hardware needs they'd be full on intel, no? Or are you suggesting they are making a sacrifice for free hardware. Evidently AMD products offer them benefits that aren't reflected in Sysmark.

 

[Phynaz]

Or are you suggesting they are making a sacrifice for free hardware.

There's a significant possibility, wouldn't you say?

When calculating performance / $, free definitely has a lot of pull.

 

[Idontcare]

Of course they've been sponsoring them for many years, that's well known. Don't you suppose though that the people at Ferrari are smart enough to purchase hardware that meets their demands. If Sysmark was a good tool to guage their hardware needs they'd be full on intel, no? Or are you suggesting they are making a sacrifice for free hardware. Evidently AMD products offer them benefits that aren't reflected in Sysmark.

I'm really not sure what it is you are arguing against here.

Surely you recognize the commercial marketing aspects that belay the very purpose of organized "sponsorships", yes?

And who said Sysmark was a good tool to gauge anything? Maybe we are just talking past each other here, I wouldn't use Sysmark to assess anything that I was putting my own money towards.

And there is no doubt that AMD offers Ferrari something that is not reflected in Sysmark...namely world class support waiting hand and foot to make sure everything is running smoothly so as to risk nothing imperiling the goodwill that needs to exist between sponsors.

If AMD would come sit next to my computers and field on-site technicians in case something crashes during a press event then I'd say to heck with Sysmark benching too

But sadly not all of AMD's customers can expect the same sort of AMD experience, and so some of them will be compelled to let Sysmark do the talking. (not that I would, but clearly some people are and will be)

 

[piesquared]

I'm really not sure what it is you are arguing against here.

Surely you recognize the commercial marketing aspects that belay the very purpose of organized "sponsorships", yes?

And who said Sysmark was a good tool to gauge anything? Maybe we are just talking past each other here, I wouldn't use Sysmark to assess anything that I was putting my own money towards.

And there is no doubt that AMD offers Ferrari something that is not reflected in Sysmark...namely world class support waiting hand and foot to make sure everything is running smoothly so as to risk nothing imperiling the goodwill that needs to exist between sponsors.

If AMD would come sit next to my computers and field on-site technicians in case something crashes during a press event then I'd say to heck with Sysmark benching too

But sadly not all of AMD's customers can expect the same sort of AMD experience, and so some of them will be compelled to let Sysmark do the talking. (not that I would, but clearly some people are and will be)

Exactly, and that is the crux of the problem. Obviously it would be better for AMD to cut the cord with BAPCo than be associated to a benchmark with an intel overlord, which doesn't evaluate their hardware to it's capabilities. If it compels only a handful of procurment decision makers to look elsewhere to evaluate their needs, then it's mission accomplished. They would have lost those sales anyway since the results of the evaluating software does no justice to AMD's new features. It seems that many analysts agree that Sysmark has run it's course and it's relevancy has past. Anyway, I guess this horse is dead.

 

[aphelion02]

Of course they've been sponsoring them for many years, that's well known. Don't you suppose though that the people at Ferrari are smart enough to purchase hardware that meets their demands. If Sysmark was a good tool to guage their hardware needs they'd be full on intel, no? Or are you suggesting they are making a sacrifice for free hardware. Evidently AMD products offer them benefits that aren't reflected in Sysmark.

Oh please, don't even try that line of argument. I am a software developer for a very large automotive company (I do lots of CPU intensive simulations and HIL testing), and I can tell you with absolute confidence that if my company entered into a business relationship with AMD, no amount of input from the engineers will allow them to get an Intel system.

 

[Idontcare]

Oh please, don't even try that line of argument. I am a software developer for a very large automotive company (I do lots of CPU intensive simulations and HIL testing), and I can tell you with absolute confidence that if my company entered into a business relationship with AMD, no amount of input from the engineers will allow them to get an Intel system.

It's true, I went from having a nice and sweet 24-node AMD cluster for running my sims at a university (where I had full reign over my procurement decisions) to having to build a replacement cluster based on Intel-only (ended up being a P4 system, thankfully Northwood so it wasn't excessively D:, but still...) solely because the new employer was DELL exclusive AND Intel exclusive on top of that.

Even if DELL offered AMD kit, my employer's IT dept told me straight up they would not support the cluster if I bought non-Intel gear. I resented the fact I was hamstrung of choices, but I consoled myself with the fact that I was getting my own $100k cluster dedicated solely to my sims and that kind of capex pampering is hard to get to fussed up about.

For the same performance I could have had a $50k AMD cluster...but it wasn't my money and the people who were authorizing me to spend their money did have a preference, a pricier preference. Bad for shareholders, same fun for IDC, and in the end the company made money off the results from the cluster anyways regardless that it was $50k over-priced.

That's business. What are you going to do?

Exactly, and that is the crux of the problem. Obviously it would be better for AMD to cut the cord with BAPCo than be associated to a benchmark with an intel overlord, which doesn't evaluate their hardware to it's capabilities. If it compels only a handful of procurment decision makers to look elsewhere to evaluate their needs, then it's mission accomplished. They would have lost those sales anyway since the results of the evaluating software does no justice to AMD's new features. It seems that many analysts agree that Sysmark has run it's course and it's relevancy has past. Anyway, I guess this horse is dead.

I had not considered the residual benefits, that they stood to nab a few more contracts that would have otherwise been assured losses had they stood by silently without protest against Sysmark.

It is definitely the case that these benchmarks seem to come and go in cycles.

SPEC and LINPACK are probably some of the longest lasting, but many other benches seem to live and die within the span of a decade. Sysmark lasted more than a decade but it wasn't a decade without questionable practices and fallout thereof.