Warp2Search.net » News » September 2002 » Attn. benchmarkers ,AMD gives thumbs down to Sysmark 2002.

This is getting ugly. I have been following this BAPCO AMD SYSMARK fiasco for past couple of weeks and it doesnt look good. Alhough this is not a breaking news i thought it should get covered here. Here is a snippet from Zdnet-"Chipmaker AMD has leveled criticisms against a widely-used benchmarking suite, calling it biased in the favor of its arch-rival Intel. The move steps up AMD's efforts to ensure that its processors compare favorably with Intel's in the public eye, but some observers say both companies' rhetoric should be taken with a large pinch of salt. " for complete lowdown click 2 ZDNET
There even are new stories that the new detonator 40.41 brings... Read More



(contd.)Geforce4 ti4600 significantly closer to ATI 9700 but only in 3Dmarks ;& in real life u get only few FPS more than before. read more about this and on Nvidia's tactics @ www.boogletech.com here .Does anybody smell fish here, me says too soon to say.
All this bad blood between AMD & Bapco(which AMD has joined now) was thrown wide open when Tom Pabst of www.tomshardware.com posted his article Tom's Blurb- Battle of hypocrites. You should really read this as you will get to look @ rare behind the scenes look at the relationships between "IT Companies", "hardware reviewers" world known only in the Web-Masters circle. please do post your views KYRO.

EWWHWW Unregistered

#38181 Posted on: 09/01/2002 10:17 PM Benchmarks are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how fast and how reliable the cpu & mobo run everyday apps, and games. What is interesting is that my P3 @1.0ghz non-ocd runs faster than my friends P4 1.7ghz. Of course I have 512mb or ram, and he only has 384mb of RAM. And I have an ATA/100 7200RPM HD, while my friend has an older ATA/33 5400RPM HD. There are many factors on what makes a system run fast, and stable.

Anon Unregistered

#38182 Posted on: 09/01/2002 11:48 PM AMD are hypocrits. Did anyone see Intel going "Sysmark 2001 has 14 tasks which favour AMD CPUs". No don't think so. As regards NVIDIA Drivers. Well, I say well done NVIDIA. Think about it. They IMPROVED performance WITHOUT affecting quality or compatibilty. ATI tried it months ago in Quake 3. Did it work? Hardly, the game looked like crap & could be fixed with a hex editor, which revelaed poorer performance. Hard luck ATI! Go NVIDIA.

MagamiAKO Unregistered

#38183 Posted on: 09/02/2002 12:34 AM AMD's original tactics are no longer working. Aside from the whole fiasco about bapco, they still have not gotten the 'top performing cpu' on many hardware review sites after the release of the 533Mhz P4. So now they resort to name calling and kicking and screaming. It's rather amusing.....And Post 1 was right, you DON'T see Intel doing this. You did not see Intel coming out in the public and saying "AMD sucks, they all biased their benchmarks." Just buy what you can afford...but remember, you only get what you pay for.

OlympusXP Unregistered

#38185 Posted on: 09/02/2002 03:08 AM You guys are way off base. Most of you people bashing AMD are Intel owners. Besides that fact, if AMD had CPUs that were actually equivalent in clock speed to the P4, they clearly out perform the P4. If you benchmark the 2600+ against the P4 2.53, the AMD hammers the Intel easily. The only way an Intel of equivalent speed can beat an AMD is if the application being used has SSE or SSE2. AMD isn't whining and crying, they're actually doing the opposite, they're clearly saying SysMark's code is optimized for the Intel side and not for the AMD, thus making it an unfair benchmark if used to compare between AMD and P4. It's sort of like racing two identical cars but one has premium fuel while the other has regular. People need to shout at SysMark, not AMD. AMD is doing nothing but pointing out that SySmark is un balanced. Also, you guys need to stop listening to everything the press says. Anyone with a brain knows the information has been corrupted somewhere along the way.

DarthBinky Unregistered

#38186 Posted on: 09/02/2002 03:33 AM The whole nVidia issue is a little absurd. The areas of the 3dMark test where the scores jump up are with respect to vertex and pixel shaders (which seem to have a big impact on the score). Everyone's complaining about performance in older games rather than checking to see how it runs with newer games that use those methods of shading. And if you're going to optimize, it makes sense to optimize the newer stuff. Who cares if you're only getting 200 FPS in Quake 3 instead of 220. Even nVidia has responded to the issue (via 3dChipset): A lot of the improvements in performance are due to improved efficiency in the driver code that effect vertex and pixel shaders. That is why the jump in Nature. A big jump can be seen in Aquanox, too, another app that uses vertex shaders and pixel shaders. Apps that use pixel and vertex shaders also just happen to be the ones that are popular for benchmarking. Games that do not use vertex and pixel shaders may not see as significant of an improvement as games that do. Brian Burke NVIDIA Corp.

MagamiAKO Unregistered

#38188 Posted on: 09/02/2002 04:36 AM And if the benchmark was in favor the other way, other companies would claim how it's off balanced. Nvidia also has done the same thing(Take note of the 'Quack3' against the R8500). Companies will do whatever they can to make another product look bad. Whether it be through public slander, or through corporate espionage. They will do it because that's what they will do. However, do take note, that Intel isn't too worried about AMD much like Nvidia doesn't really care about ATI's R9700. Intel has done nothing majorly special with their CPUs to go against AMD, contrary to AMD's public denouncement of Intel on many numerous occasions on all fronts which include business management abilities. It's just a crying game that will go on and on and on.....but there are companies that have enough money to look for the long term..One thing of keynote is that while AMD is not going anywhere anytime soon, they also have a lot more financial issues to worry about than Intel. Intel is a much larger company, with a much higher revenue stream. Intel is one of those companies that's just not going to disappear, even if AMD did have the lead in desktop cpu performance for the next 4 years. Intel is a company that looks to the long term. "What can we do now to make the most significant advancements?" While AMD has sat there and looked to the short term. What have they done? Hyper Transport, supported slow memory, and hammer technology. Hyper Transport will soon be a defunct standard come 3 years down the line. Hammer will be a defunct standard come 3 years down the line ,and DDR SDRAM is already showing its age. What has Intel given to the industry to catapault us into the new age? PCI. That's right, PCI is an Intel Labs creation. What else. AGP? That's another one, AGP is yet another product of Intel's R&D. Serial ATA, yet to be released, but a major jump, another product. PCIExpress, will catapault us for the next 10 years in system bus architecture much like PCI has today. On top of defining industry standards for cpu and system design, they maintain a high level of R&D in CPU performance. Intel has also said numerous times, that come 5 years, they will be at 20Ghz. That's how I measure how much 'better' a company is than the other.

El_Coyote Senior Member Posts: 555 Joined: 2002-12-18

#38190 Posted on: 09/02/2002 08:31 AM you forget the new drivers doesnt improve gameplay more than 1-2 fps - the improvement is only in 3dmark - and who can use that for anything? smells fishy i say...

NiChO Unregistered

#38191 Posted on: 09/02/2002 09:07 AM Well, Nvidia forgot to optimize the Anisotropic filtering. I still get bad performance in 1600x1200x32 with 4x or 8xAF enabled. I dont need AA at this high resolution but AF would be nice. Using Rivtuner and their optimized AF I get playable fps at least. Ex. 31.00/40.41 driver RTCW checkpoint demo 1600x1200x32 all setting maxed + high quality sound Default trilinear: 87.2 fps (92.3 fps with 40.41) Nvidia AF: 2x: 55.3 fps 4x: 44.8 fps (46.9 fps with 40.41) 8x: 40.3 fps (42.2 fps with 40.41) Rivatuner performance opt. AF: 2x: 68.1 fps 4x: 57 fps 8x: 50.7 fps System: P4 @ 2.83 ghz (665.98 FSB) 768 MB DDR GF4 Ti4600 @ 300/650 mhz

xtra Unregistered

#38192 Posted on: 09/02/2002 11:19 AM Are u a employee of Intel or NVIDIA?? Or probably u r blind... Sysmark is supported by a lot of Intel-pro companies. It is so easy to implement benchmarks in favour of someone who pays better. Regarding NVIDIA, the benchmarks are only better in 3DMark. I suppose u play a lot with that 'game'!? They feel their ass so tight, that any dirty move is necessary to close the eyes of people like you... future of NVIDIA = 3DFX???

xtra Unregistered

#38193 Posted on: 09/02/2002 11:32 AM The comments regarding Intel not censoring AMD for biased benchmarks are simply hilarious! Of course, they can’t do that, because those benchmarks don’t exist! Intel and NVIDIA are 2 desperate companies struggling to destroy 2 other companies, not by legal and fair ways, but, with dirty moves and shutting the eyes of consumers like some of u. I own a GeForce, but it is the last one I buy. I will move to ATI as I did with AMD, 2 years ago… I don’t like who doesn’t play fair, and much less, I will give them my money. The hell with them!! And, please, stop acting like u work for them. They don’t care about u, they just want ur cash!

Anon Unregistered

#38210 Posted on: 09/02/2002 07:26 PM xtra, get your facts right. I work for no tech companies. The simple fact is the new NVIDIA drivers improve performance without breaking anything. Ok, so its limited to vertex/pixel shaders, so? Pretty much every new game support them. OlympusXP I AM an AMD user, that's what my main gaming system is. Again, as I stated before AMD are moaning as the test doesn't go right for them. Big deal. The previous Sysmark didn't go in Intels favor. Where is the big problem with that? Do you mean to tell us that AMD are quite right to say that the benchmark is useless because it doesn't favor their CPUs anymore. Yet in the previous versions when Sysmark *did* benefit them they kept their mouths shut & said nothing about bias. Yeah, that's "fair" alright.

Warp2Search.net » News » September 2002 » Attn. benchmarkers ,AMD gives thumbs down to Sysmark 2002.