• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Questionable Anandtech AMD APU Scores

M

monstercameron

Diamond Member
I was reading this http://www.anandtech.com/show/6877/the-great-equalizer-part-3/2 article about the performance of mobile phone gpus when I noticed how low the AMD E-350 was scoring[10012], so I checked notebookcheck.net http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-7310.70634.0.html for 3dmark ice storm results. The AMD E-350 benchmarks didn't have ice storm results so I checked the AMD E1-1200 http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-E-Series-E1-1200-Notebook-Processor.73569.0.html which has the same gpu. The E1-1500 is a slightly slower part, e350@1.6ghz vs e1-1200@1.4ghz. The page says ice storm overall score was 18760, but I thought that wasn't enough evidence so I checked the results database for the e-350s gpu -hd6310- and found over 200 results higher than that of anand's and I might have found the specific numbers anand pulled for the comparisons.

over 200 higher scores
http://www.3dmark.com/search#/?mode...ch/gpu/is/P/666/500000?minScore=0&gpuName=AMD Radeon HD 6310

possibly anands results
http://www.3dmark.com/is/360187

Note that in the above results the e-350 is clock at ~800mhz[possible incorrect reading?], which might have skewed the numbers for the comparison, possibly making the performance lower. Was this done to isolate the gpu performance? by accident? or other technical issue?

maybe it was the board?
http://www.3dmark.com/is/465517 this result uses the same board so there goes that theory...

maybe the test was done at 1080p.
 
Last edited:
I think with the removal of two words, "biased" and "maliciously," the thread would better meet standards. It's not fair to assume those things without more evidence. Of course, then you'd want to say "Questionable." Yes, with a capital. You make those with the "Shift" key.
 
crashtech said:
I think with the removal of two words, "biased" and "maliciously," the thread would better meet standards. It's not fair to assume those things without more evidence. Of course, then you'd want to say "Questionable." Yes, with a capital. You make those with the "Shift" key.
Click to expand...
you don't have to be condescending, anyway fixed!
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing their test platform/device was causing some kind of throttling during the benchmark. It's hard to say for sure though, given how sparse the details are in the article.
 
Considering how so many other sites look to Anandtech as the Gold Standard reference for impartial HW reviewing, I'd be more inclined to think that this is a methodology mistake at worst. Let us know what response you get from the reviewer... HAHAHAHA, just saw that Anand is actually the reviewer in this case. If you sent him an accusatory email, then he probably won't bother to respond to you at all. If he does, I'd be interested to see what he says.
 
The following is from AMD E2-1800 on SONY VIO 11.6" laptop. I run the bench a few months ago with Cat 13.1 or 13.4 (cant remember now) on win 8 pro 64bit.

CPU frequency is at 1.7GHz, iGPU at 680/523MHz, single dimm DDR-3 1333MHz memory.

Edit: here is the link
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/588885

ib0r.jpg


Here is the 3D Mark 2006

3m40.jpg
 
Last edited:
O yeah, anandtech has been compromised for several years now. Get your benches from other sources.


This got you an infraction. No thread crapping ! Next one is vacation time.
Markfw900
Anandtech Moderator
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe Anand didn't get your email (went to spam folder). Try contacting some other reviewer from AT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top