AMD nektes Intel-dokumenter

[Knick Knack]

Intel har alt å tape på å måtte utlevere disse belastede dokumentene, mens AMD har alt å vinne i sin pågående sak i EU-systemet. Rett skal være rett.

 

Med AMD sin fremfred mot VIA i det siste er jeg imidlertid ikke sikker på om jeg gidder å ha serlig sympati med de heller.

At AMD skulle være i konflikt med VIA er nytt for meg, hva tenker du på?

AMD missbruker gamle VIA systemer og prosessorer til å fremme at Geode er bedre enn VIA sine produkter. Benchmarkene er så hårreisende utført at selv THG på sitt beste ikke kunne måle seg. Bra jobba av AMD

[snorreh]

Intel har alt å tape på å måtte utlevere disse belastede dokumentene, mens AMD har alt å vinne i sin pågående sak i EU-systemet.  Rett skal være rett.

 

Med AMD sin fremfred mot VIA i det siste er jeg imidlertid ikke sikker på om jeg gidder å ha serlig sympati med de heller.

At AMD skulle være i konflikt med VIA er nytt for meg, hva tenker du på?

AMD missbruker gamle VIA systemer og prosessorer til å fremme at Geode er bedre enn VIA sine produkter. Benchmarkene er så hårreisende utført at selv THG på sitt beste ikke kunne måle seg. Bra jobba av AMD

Åja? Det ser nå ikke slik ut hvis man ser på dette iallefall:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/ConnectivitySolut...5E10852,00.html

 

Storm i et vannglass?

 

Jeg synes det tross alt er bedre å sammenligne ytelsen til sine prosessorer med konkurrentenes prosessorer enn kun å sammenligne med egne prosessorer og ignorere de andre slik Intel pleier å gjøre...

Endret 12. oktober 2004 av snorreh

[Dollar]

Tror han snakker om denne saken her, AMD accused of blatant Geode benchmark abuse fra tidligere denne månden.

 

Fordelen med Intel's benchmarking er at de ikke tester (og "forstyrrer" resultater) fra konkurrentenes produkter. Den jobben overlater de til uavhengige nettsteder, som dette

 

Ulempen (for konkurrentene) er jo at Intel ikke akkurat gir dem noe gratis reklame...

[Boralis]

Tror han snakker om denne saken her, AMD accused of blatant Geode benchmark abuse fra tidligere denne månden.

 

Fordelen med Intel's benchmarking er at de ikke tester (og "forstyrrer" resultater) fra konkurrentenes produkter. Den jobben overlater de til uavhengige nettsteder, som dette

 

Ulempen (for konkurrentene) er jo at Intel ikke akkurat gir dem noe gratis reklame...

[snorreh]

Tror han snakker om denne saken her, AMD accused of blatant Geode benchmark abuse fra tidligere denne månden.

Storm i et vannglass altså, og handler bare om en sunn diskusjon om bruken av benchmarks for denne typen prosessorer istedet for GHz. Se denne kommentaren for hele historien:

 

Editorial: Can Benchmarking Be Rational?

In this particular case, an independent company called Synchromesh Computing had developed, in conjunction with processor vendor AMD, the Embedded Processor Rating System (EPRS). Synchromesh Computing was founded by, and is owned by, Alan Weiss, who also heads the EEMBC Certification Labs (ECL). And, in the interest of full disclosure, we should note that Alan and EEMBC president Markus Levy are members of the Microprocessor Report editorial board. Without any outside review, AMD’s Geode marketing team used the EPRS to rationalize a processor numbering scheme that positioned various Geode processors against various VIA C3 processors. We believe AMD used the benchmarks as a blatant market-positioning tool.

 

AMD’s argument was that using frequency to compare Geode processors with VIA processors wasn’t valid. True enough. The soundness of this argument has increased from the past, when Keith Diefendorff wrote the editorial “Benchmarks are Bunk” (MPR 6/26/00-01) in 2000, proclaiming that PC benchmarks were less useful in determining processor performance than core clock frequency was. Some processor microarchitectures (i.e., Intel’s Pentium 4 NetBurst architecture), with wildly exaggerated pipeline lengths, have proved that clock frequency can be just as misleading. (The 2.0GHz Pentium M has a better SPECint2000_base score than the 3.6GHz Pentium 4!) We agree with the sentiment with regard to EPRS, but we have trouble with the execution.

 

Tom’s story covered the issues but didn’t finish the process. We believed there was a need to get the interested parties together, in a neutral venue, to establish a dialog. And so we added the panel to the FPF program. The discussion is open to embedded x86 benchmarking as a whole, not just the AMD–VIA controversy. We expect a lively discussion and believe this is another step in the evolution of microprocessor benchmarking.

 

Se også dette PDF-dokumentet fra Synchromesh Computing:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_ty...aper_052504.pdf

Clock speed is not the only factor that goes into performance, and with this study we have shown that it is logical to rate a processor based on a suite of recognized benchmarks. Memory subsystem, graphics, bus speed, and instructions per clock cycle all play a role in overall performance.

 

Indeed, we believe that processor companies in this application space need to move beyond clock speed, and use PPR benchmarking to position their products, to price their products, and provide meaningful product information to their customers.

 

Synchromesh Computing welcomes all x86 vendors to submit their systems for benchmarking and certification.

 

Fordelen med Intel's benchmarking er at de ikke tester (og "forstyrrer" resultater) fra konkurrentenes produkter. Den jobben overlater de til uavhengige nettsteder, som dette

 

Ulempen (for konkurrentene) er jo at Intel ikke akkurat gir dem noe gratis reklame...

Nei, slik håpløs ignoranse viser bare hvor arrogante og navlebeskuende de egentlig er

Endret 12. oktober 2004 av snorreh

[Dollar]

Fordelen med Intel's benchmarking er at de ikke tester (og "forstyrrer" resultater) fra konkurrentenes produkter. Den jobben overlater de til uavhengige nettsteder, som dette

 

Ulempen (for konkurrentene) er jo at Intel ikke akkurat gir dem noe gratis reklame...

Nei, slik håpløs ignoranse viser bare hvor arrogante og navlebeskuende de egentlig er

En "sjef" i IBM uttalte engang at deres beste selgere var konkurrentene... som aldri kunne holde kjeft om hvordan de var minst like gode eller bedre enn IBM.

 

Tror du ser hva jeg sikter til her. Hvorfor skulle Intel nevne konkurrentene med navn, det ville være en stor anerkjennelse [av konkurrentene]. Ikke i Intel's aksjonærers beste interesse mao.

Ikke uvanlig av selskaper i [intel-]liknende posisjoner, har ikke noe med arroganse å gjøre - det er bare common business sense

 

Edit: Typo..

Endret 12. oktober 2004 av Dollar

[snorreh]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19069

Wall St Journal reports that detectives operating on behalf of the EC are stepping up allegations that Intel broke agreements by governments’ requests that they use Chipzilla rather than Chimpzilla central processing units.

 

The J said that the detectives have sent formal requests to France, to Finland, to Sweden and to The Netherlands asking how public tenders were put.

 

Germany hasn’t been sent letters, said the J, possibly because it doesn’t have an unbiased attitude on tendering agreements, considering that Dresden, AMD”s only real fab, produces chips thanks to a government grant.

 

The problem appears to be that many governments in the vastly expanded EuroWorld specified that chips in computers should have Intel Inside.

 

It will take many more years for the bureaucrats to sort this one out, we tentatively suggest.

 

The lawyers' tails are already probably wagging, in a Pavlovian reaction to big bucks. The civil servant pens, no doubt, will be kept wet for years yet.

[snorreh]

EU Expands Probe Into Intel Favortism

The European Union's head office Wednesday expanded its probe into whether EU governments are illegally requiring that the computers they buy must contain microprocessors made by Intel Corp.

 

The European Commission sent formal notices to France, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden seeking information on public tenders for computers that either require they contain Intel chips or specify a chip speed only the U.S. giant can provide.

 

Similar letters were sent this year to Italy and Germany and their replies are now being evaluated.

 

The commission said it believes such requirements violate European law on public procurement.

 

"You can specify the performance you are looking for in a particular computer problem, but not a specification that can only be met by one manufacturer," said commission spokesman Jonathan Todd.

 

The investigation was sparked by Intel's chief U.S. rival, Advanced Micro Devices Inc., which said it complained to the EU about procurement tenders in several member states.

 

Jens Drews, AMD's spokesman in Europe, welcomed the expansion of the probe.

 

"We see this as a sign that the EU commission is serious about creating a level playing field in a critical IT sector in Europe," he said.

 

Intel said it was not involved in the probe.

 

"These tenders are being drafted by governments or local authorities," said Intel spokesman Kristof Sehmke in Antwerp, Belgium. "We do not influence that, of course."

 

AMD has long accused Intel of unfair sales practices in Europe, such as offering loyalty rebates to customers and signing exclusive purchasing agreements.

 

EU antitrust regulators reached a preliminary conclusion in 2002 that there was insufficient evidence to bring any charges. But in June, regulators said they would look into Intel's business practices again after AMD refused to withdraw its complaint.

 

In the latest probe, EU officials have backed away from accusing Intel of violating EU competition rules, adding they did not know why governments put Intel-only clauses in bid requirements.

 

The four countries cited have two months to respond to the notices. They could be hauled before the European Court of Justice if the contracts are found to violate EU rules and they fail to rectify them.

 

The commission said it was concerned about roughly a dozen tenders by local authorities or public bodies in France; an invitation to tender by the municipality of Amsterdam; three tenders from the Universities of Jyvaskyla and Tampere and Hame Polytechnic in Finland; and others by the Swedish municipality of Filipstad, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden's national police authority and the Uppsala regional authority.

Endret 23. oktober 2004 av snorreh