Thursday, March 09, 2006

INTEL has the burden of proof

After the public outcry about the Conroe/FX60 benchmark we discussed here, Intel offered some defensive explanations on why the BIOS on the AMD box was old, etc. But, that's not even the key issue here.

The key issue is, INTEL needs to prove its performance claims. Intel must prove that it didn't dope the Conroe machine.

Whoever wants to claim something to be true and wants to benefit from its being true has the burden of proof.

INTEL claimed its Conroe chip is 20% faster than AMD64, INTEL made this claim with the aim to profit from the claim.

So, prove it.

Tanya Harding can't claim she is the champ, unless she goes through a contest in a public arena, then subjects herself to doping tests. The same applies to any other athlete.

INTEL doped Skype with the aim to force consumers to not buy AMD64 but Intel's double die. INTEL claimed that only Intel CPUs are good enough for Skype's 10-way call, but it was found to be a mere CPUID check to exclude AMD CPUs.

INTEL can dope Skype, it sure can dope its own horse.

INTEL can't have the machine in an environment of its own control and claim anything. Intel can't add credibility by merely having Anand relay the data of this machine arranged by INTEL itself (without any anti-doping tests etc), the Anand cheerleading afterwards doesn't add credibility either.

So my challenge to INTEL is simple: don't be shy, don't hide, lend two Conroe boxes to two 3rd parties and let them do a full test.

One thing we also want to know is whether the Intel has done copying the AMD64 instruction set---no news about that in the IDF.

By the way, I have clear and convincing proof that Woodcrest will be 10-20% slower than Opteron 280 here, based on the following credible evidence:

1) The independent benchmarks done on Paxville DP 2.8GHZ and Opteron 280 are credible.

2) INTEL's claim of Woodcrest's 80% performance increase over Paxville DP 2.8GHZ is presumed to be credible.

Woodcrest is the server chip based on the Conroe, just like FX60 is pretty much the same as Opteron 280 in most aspects. Since Woodcrest is slower, Conroe must also be slower. Yet, the Conroe setup by Intel was claimed to be faster. I think this is clear and convincing proof that there was doping acitivity there.

Intel throws good money after the Itanium chip, because so called INTEL NGMA won't do wonders. NMGA is just an enhancement to the Pentium 3 and is five generations behind today's AMD64 .


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Go to revised anand benchmarks with updated BIOS. Today I belive that Intel is 20% faster than FX 2.8 so AMD must answer for that selling AM2 parts with better core and cache extended to 4-8MB.
AM2 gives 5-10% improvement - but it's not enough.
X2 core is one year old so they must change it...

9:21 AM, March 09, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You rely your opinion on Intel claiming 80% performance increase but you don't belive in Intel 20% performance lead over a64....

9:23 AM, March 09, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

I don't buy the results from the INTEL controlled machine, a simple tweak of the system timer could result in that difference of performance: for instance, making 10 seconds appeared to be 8 seconds to the system while the tests are being run on the Conroe.

My comparison of Woodcrest and Opteron 280 is conclusive. Since Woodcrest and Conroe are basically the same chip, the conclusion is Conroe will not be any faster than AMD64.

9:25 AM, March 09, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

I am pointing out a major discrepency of INTEL's claims on Woodcrest and Conroe here. However, I give the 80% claim on Woodcrest more credibility, because there, INTEL has to face big server companies such as IBM and HP, which can easily invalidate any bogus claims. On the other hand, INTEL can toy those small review web sites with ease.

9:30 AM, March 09, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

TechReport described the benchmark condition here:

"We used test systems pre-configured by Intel before the show, and we had very limited time to conduct testing or inspect the systems. We were not allowed to look inside of the case of either PC, and the scope of the benchmarks we were allowed to run was defined by Intel. We weren't given the leeway to record our own custom timedemos for the games, and we didn't have enough time to run each test three times or even reboot between the tests....

our role really was confined largely to clicking a few icons and menu items to kick off a test and then writing down the results."

5:00 PM, March 09, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

HP compared a 3GHZ Woodcrest (same core as Conroe) with a 2.4GHZ Opteron running under 32 bit mode during the IDF.

9:26 AM, March 11, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, I understand Mr. Sharikou is a claimed Ph.D and he is so enthusiastic about AMD and nothing anybody in the world would say would change his mind. But the burning question I have, what qualifies him/her to have any merit to what he say. I bet you any journalist can read few articles from other web sites and summarizes them in this forum. The problem is that does not give him/her credibility

8:12 PM, March 11, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Intel didn't even allow people to look at the device manmager of the conroe machine:
"While Intel did not allow us to peek into the Device Manager, we were able to navigate around the rest of the system and while you maybe skeptical that this is an Intel setup benchmark, we could not find any undue faults with both test beds. We also did not have enough time due other schedules and as such, we did not manage to get into the BIOS nor were we able to run each benchmark in more than one setting.

8:32 PM, March 22, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home