PCMark2002 and Intel bias

[lordtyranus2]

I am biased towards AMD's pricing. While a Barton 2500+ may not perform as well as a 2.4C (actually, I have no clue whether this is true or not), the 2.4C is not worth 50% higher price IMO.

 

[andreasl]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: andreasl
Anyone who is interested in knowing what PCmark2002 REALLY tests, you should read this article:

PCMark2002 - A First Look

And there you go!!! Just as the test I have shown above...The cpu test has quite a few multimedia test and therefore is not really that much of a shock when you see all the real-world benches that show INtel leading in those test...

Yes it is a synthetic test. I have stated this numerous times don't put that much stock in it, but don't claim it is biased unless you have proof. It is good for what that article tested...same architecture and same platform comparison...

I think the article was ather wish-washy on some of its conclusions throughtout the article....

I don't use this test anyways. I usually go past all the sissoft, pcmark, sysmark, and 3dmark test when I do read reviews...

PCmark2002 is a toy benchmark. It kind of reminds me of Van Smith's COSBI thing. Anyone remembered that? It measures mostly stuff that are no longer CPU limited (perhaps they were about 10 years ago) with a few exceptions. And the datasets are WAY too small. The overall score is calculated from some really obscure formula that makes little sense other than balancing out the numbers (but only does so for a chosen architecture whichever that is).

The memory benchmark is equally dumb. As it measures not only memory bandwidth but also cache bandwidth! This would be fine if the program had not combined those scores into a single number. And it's this single number that everyone is reporting. The result is that adding cache to a processor or increasing it's clockspeed (without affecting the FSB) will increase the memory bandwidth reported from this benchmark. I suspect that most people are not aware of the details of this benchmark so they won't know why this happens.

 

[Richdog]

Duvie, while I agree more with you in this particular argument, you're making a mountain over a molehill. Calm down a little, he may not be right but he wasn't really insulting and did try and put his point accross reasonably...:beer:

 

[HurleyBird]

Pc mark 2002 seems to be fairly free of bias.

sysmark on the other hand...