Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Was Anand duped by INTEL?

I warned that INTEL will try all sorts of dirty tricks, this is INTEL's character. From the book "Inside Intel" by Tim Jackson, INTEL even tampered documents to defraud the Court and the jury. From AMD's lawsuit, INTEL was accused of rigging benchmarks (remember BAPCo?) and tampering compilers. More recently, we have INTEL caught playing dirty with Skype. The list could go on.

Today, at IDF, the smart INTEL folks left two machines for people to play with, one equipped with an AMD CPU and one with a future INTEL Conroe CPU, both with a bunch of gaming and other benchmarks installed. Curious as our Anand, he hang around them with a lot of interest, an INTEL guy recognized him as the Anand, and granted him 60 minutes to play with the machines. Anand pushed through the crowd, hurriedly yet professionally ran a set of benchmarks, then quickly wrote: "Intel Regains the Performance Crown". He did all that in little less than 59 minutes and 59 seconds, amazing.

Readers of AnandTech were awed by INTEL's performance: 10-30% faster than 2.8GHZ AMD on gaming! Many vowed to hold off buying AMD. I bet INTEL folks are giggling.

But, wait a minute, the Anand! First, INTEL hasn't gained the crown yet, Conroe is still months away, AMD hasn't shown its cards yet. So Anand, be precise, a title of "Intel May Regain the Performanc Crown In Six Months" might be more proper, that is how professional journalists write, you should learn.

Then, pay attention, Anand, INTEL painstakingly arranged the AMD box for a purpose. There might be traps there. Looking at the BIOS screen, it says "Main Processor: AMD Processor Model Unknown", hmm, something fishy already from the beginning, it indicates that the BIOS didn't recognize the CPU at all.

So, let's look closer, "Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PC, Copyright (C) 1984-2003, Phoenix Technologies, LTD". Let's dig deeper.

After googling for a while, we found that AwardBIOS v6.00PC was used on old Athlon XPs.

For an Athlon 64, DFI has updated BIOS here dated 2005 which fixes a lot of problems and added support for FX60. I doubt DFI is shipping 2006 motherboards with 2003 BIOS. Anand, please call DFI and see if they shipped any 2006 motherboards with a 2003 BIOS, that's what professional journalists do: get the truth out and earn credibility.

If not, then INTEL was rigging the BIOS so the dual core AMD64 CPU would act like a unknown CPU without the super duper AMD64 features. Anand, you claimed that the CPU was an FX60 running at 2.8GHZ, but how did you know? Did you remove the heatsink and have a peek? What if INTEL put an Athlon 64 x2 3800+ there?

I never thought Anand could be so gullible, Rahul Sood, CTO of Voodoo PC, was surprised by Anand's apparent naiveness too.

PS: I sent this message to INTEL execs, AMD execs, Anand and media folks, plus a request for INTEL to let Anand take the Conroe machine home for a test. We will see if INTEL can meet that small challenge.

AMD should say something to clarify the situation too, such as the effect of using an old BIOS on a new chip.

PPS: After public outcry, INTEL changed the BIOS on the AMD box, and Anand did the same tests again. This indicates INTEL has complete control of the system and knows what they were doing, Anand was simply reduced to a pawn in an INTEL controlled environment to push the right buttons INTEL pre-arranged. Given the fishy stuff going on with F.E.A.R, and INTEL's Skype CPUID cheat, such INTEL controlled tests cannot be trusted.

Again, I challenge INTEL to lend the Conroe box to Anand for a full test. According to my estimate based on INTEL's PR, Woodcrest will be 10-20% slower than Opteron 280, there is simply no way that Conroe can be faster than the FX60.

48 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It figures that Intel couldn't win without cheating. I wonder what else they did. And even if their cpu is faster, it won't be released for months. By the time they get around to releasing it, AMD will no doubt have something out that is faster and cheaper.

And anyway, if the Intel cpu was really faster across the board, they wouldn't have needed to cheat. The fact that they did indicates that they probably couldn't win otherwise.

5:07 PM, March 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you misread. it's AwardBIOS v6.00PG, not 6.00PC. I bought a socket 939 Athlon 64 last month and it has the same 6.00PG bios.

5:28 PM, March 07, 2006  
Anonymous Joe "Frap" Cooper said...

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1918&page=12

Here, a 3rd party reviews the same game (FEAR) on the same FX-60 overclocked to the same 2.8ghz.

They get ~140fps and is still beaten by Intel's Conroe.

Plus the PG thing - I noticed that as well and pointed it out on the AMD Yahoo board.

That said, this is a 6-month-away chip against a current AMD chip with a 7% core overclock. What's AMD gonna do about this? I know they aren't gonna sit still for half a year, but some specifics would be grand.

5:38 PM, March 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

current AMD chip with a 7% core overclock = 6 month-away AMD chip.....
bye, bye AMD

10:54 AM, March 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

joe "frap" cooper!
they got ~140fps for 2.88GHz Athlon FX not the 2.8GHz as Athlon used in Anantech benchmarks.....
bye, bye AMD

11:08 AM, March 08, 2006  
Blogger netrama said...

What does that Indian dude worry about performance ..I bet all he cares is his ad revenue.. I think for that matter he doesnt even own a single INTC share as well..why .. one look at the title "Intel Regains the Performance Crown" says everything about his ignorance !!
AMD is working on atleast 2 Major disruptive frags on Intel to come out in the next few months ..but they dont beat their own drums like way Intel does to manipulate market.

11:45 AM, March 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

netrama please provide at least ONE fact that proves your point.....
As for today from the anandtech you can get the performance benchmarks that prove that new generation of Intel chips is at least 20-30% faster than the current AMD offering (overclocked to 2.8GHz).
Moreover - on tomshardware.com you can read the preview of the upcoming AM2 technology.....which is at best as fast as the current AMD offering....
AMD is going down.....they have nothing to compete with Intel starting from Q3 this year.

11:51 AM, March 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou is stepping over the line by accusing Anand Shimpi of not doing a fair test. Anand is an expert and I trust his opinions. I don't trust Sharikou's opinions.

11:53 AM, March 08, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

No, I did not say Anand wasn't doing a fair test. Anand did the tests on an AMD box arranged by INTEL, with a 2003 BIOS...

12:01 PM, March 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well I think the Anand test shows that AMD will have to work overtime during the next few months to catch up.

"AMD still does have some time to surprise us with AM2, but from what we've seen today, they are going to have to do a lot of work to close this gap. We saw performance today in the two areas that we were most concerned about with Conroe: gaming and media encoding, and in both Intel greatly exceeded our expectations."

12:05 PM, March 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou be honest please....
> Anand did the tests on an AMD box arranged by INTEL, with a 2003 BIOS...

FYI - DFI R480 board the same as used in benchmarks from Anandtech.com was introduced to the market in Q1 2005.....

12:10 PM, March 08, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

I asked Anand to call DFI and see if they installed 2003 BIOS on that board, maybe someone else can do it?

12:44 PM, March 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou - your ignorance amazes me....
1984-2003 6.00PG - is the versioning information for the Award-Phoenix part of the BIOS. It is not the information on the version of the DFI BIOS installed on this particular PC.
Almost all BIOS'es for all different motherboards use BIOS from Award-Phoenix. But such BIOS must be customized for any particular board by the board vendor. The 6.00PG is the version number for the common Award-Phoenix BIOS code - it is not the DFI BIOS version number....
Its basic knowledge ....

1:05 PM, March 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou - you may easily check that even the latest BIOS for the DFI board the one that supports Athlon FX 60 contains Award-Phoenix BIOS 6.00PG. Just go there:
http://us.dfi.com.tw/Support/Download/bios_download_us.jsp?PRODUCT_ID=3669&CATEGORY_TYPE=LP&STATUS_FLAG=A&SITE=US
download - Revision A BIOS.

You can easily check using any editor that this BIOS contains the following string:
Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG 4Copyright (C) 1984-2003, Phoenix Technologies

Bingo - Sharikou is an ignorant.

1:14 PM, March 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another DFI board latest BIOS also contains
Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG 4Copyright (C) 1984-2003, Phoenix Technologies, LTD string.....
http://us.dfi.com.tw/Support/Download/bios_download_us.jsp?PRODUCT_ID=4497&CATEGORY_TYPE=LP&STATUS_FLAG=A&SITE=US

1:20 PM, March 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anandtech is not a credible tech blog. Benchmarks and polls are rigged for a particular outcome.

Arstechnica is just as bad. These people are not interested in technology, they are only interested in doing pseudo-reviews as a form of advertising for Microsoft and Intel.

2:12 PM, March 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, if BIOS is up to date, why is well known chip displayed as "Unknown"?

5:34 PM, March 08, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Please read the comments by VooDoo PC's CTO, he definitely knows about these motherboards and graphics cards better.

5:40 PM, March 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just found this benchmark on Athlon 64FX-60.


It's a slightly slower AMD chip. But if you extroplate to 2.8GHz, the numbers quoted on AnandTeck looks crediable. Looks like the next few month can become a little bit testy for AMD...

P.S. I'm a long time AMD holder. And I still believe in their Engeering team.

7:47 PM, March 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Doesn't matter what Sharikou says. For data intensive applications like video processing memory speed is key. And even Intel's current architecture whips AMD's.

7:54 PM, March 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh my GAAWWWD! AMD dropping like a rock. Once it breaks support at $35, next stop is $25.

8:14 PM, March 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marketing from marketers; Conroe

Originally posted at:

http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=4687810&tid=amd&sid=4687810&mid=1345608

Did anyone really expect anything less from the current intel? In just three months they have:

1) warned twice;
2) missed these reduced expectations;
3) lost rapid marketshare;
4) rapidly increased inventories;
5) experienced a mass exodus of previously faithful OEMS;
6) cancelled mid-Q updates; and
7) lost the confidence of wall street.

What is (real) marketing man Otellini to do?

Taking the suit & tie off and donning a lab coat is out of the question. Too much like real work. So isn't another sad attempt at blaming chipsets, everyone kind of raised a brow at that the last time. But, this hardening image of Intel as a second class manufacturer and laggard was unacceptable to the Board and institutions. Might even cost me my job.

Ah, I got it, just like my prof back at Wharton used to say during one of his daily rants:

Attempt to clot the potentially fatal hemorrhaging by promising the world you have the latest and greatest just around the corner in true marketing 101 fashion. It doesn't matter if your paper tiger is not due for six months.

In this realm, all you need to do is pay a couple of eager enthusiast websites to agree to publish a story full of catchy soundbites and one-sided, unverifiable, favorable comparisons highlighting the POTENTIAL of your forthcoming superchip. Thus, at a minimum, you have slowed potential defectors from your iconic brand and made those ready to switch re-evaluate their pending purchases, if only for 6 months, and may have negatively impacted your brutal competitor's inventory balance. It definetly whacked their stock. Perfect plan.

In this time you have bought yourself a brief reprieve from the unkind wrath of shareholders unaccustomed to second class status. You have also given those idiots in engineering a chance to earn their inflated salaries and hopefully took the pressure off K. Roll to defect and really cause some trouble with the boys.

Damn I'm good and I deserve a raise. Maybe me and K. Roll can get a mid-morning time at the club. We certainly deserve it.

This sad scenario is a likely result of turning over the reins of a once great design and manufacturing firm to a pure salesman.

AMD had one in charge for years and could never get over the hump. While Jerry possessed certain valuable and necessary qualities, their ascencion to the position of tech leader only came with Hector (and Dirk) in charge.

The role reversal is not a coincidence.

8:18 PM, March 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again Sharikou, wannabe self-proclaiming PhD, is lying as a dog. His ignorance and BS on the BIOS issue shows that he is an ignorant who doesn't understand the technical details. Sharikou, self-proclaiming PhD, is an ignorant who doesn't understand the technical details.

10:50 PM, March 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

THE FACTS AND WHY THIS ARTICLE IS MISLEADING AND SLANDEROUS:

Most BIOS display this when the version is checked, even ones on boards from 2005 and 2006. Anyone who deals with hardware frequently should have observed this at least once in their life and thought "how odd".... only pretty much every board on the market will say in the title of the BIOS version.

v6.00 = The current version

Copyright (C) 1984-2003 - Indicates a copyright period.... not a version.

You are just another fanboy (this time AMD) in denial..... I use an AMD Opteron 270 (4 cores over 2 sockets) now, and will likely be using a Conroe based system (for gaming) within 6-9 montes unless an AMD K9/K10 processor core is released that has a 5-8 issue core clocked at 2.5 GHz (apx).

If the AMD 2.8 GHz system above is 'so fake' then why does it perform roughly as one would expect such a system to perform in FEAR ?
I think some sites are just lazy and didn't go to IDF, now they want to tarnish the reputation of Anandtech / Dailytech.

Note: I read TomsHardware, Anandtech and Xbitlabs to generate an informed opinion, if one site if 'slightly biased' the other sites generally will not be.

Also, I'd take the entire pre-release benchmarks of any system with a grain of salt, when it is released we will know..... until then we should all learn to chill out and get along.

So AMD have lower IPC than Intel.... like duh 3 issue core vs 4 issue core... performs 4/3 better and looks ahead more instructions. Performs exactly as expected.

If you bothered to build a AMD Athlon 64 FX-60/62 system you'd take back this entire artile after applying the new BIOS and gaining under 3% on the AMD system in games performance.

I have now lost all respect for this site.

10:56 PM, March 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most people have lost all respect for this site already. They only come here to attack Sharikou and mock his incredible ignorance.

Sharikou, wannabe self-proclaiming PhD

11:04 PM, March 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Sharkboy was so confident, why does he delete posts that don't agree with him?

AMD - Timberrrrr!!!!

11:34 PM, March 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MyMy the Intel boys are a bit irritable, I have read and looked at the spec's and discussion on the conroe benchmarks
all I could say is that quiet confident companys don't need hyperbole to sell real products, If AMD came out and
spouted about AMD2 and how it was going to smash Intel then they would loose genuine respect that has been built up by consumers and computer suppliers with good fast reliable products. Intel evidence speaks for itself.

12:07 AM, March 09, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AMD has nothing to put against the Conroe.... see AM2 preview on tomshardware.com - actually AM2 is a bit slower than the current AMD offering.

12:45 AM, March 09, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharky just can't take it when he's wrong. That's all there is to this issue. Sharky knows that AMD is losing the battle and not much can be done to salvage AMD but hey maybe the stock will be up tomorrow.

2:17 AM, March 09, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anand retested with the mentioned issues fixed. Similar results.
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716&p=1

5:10 AM, March 09, 2006  
Anonymous Bene said...

The THG AM2 test is not convincing because they used an early engineering sample with the old DDR2 memory controller. There is already a new one in developing (with DDR2-800 support).
IMO it sounds very fishy to allocate an AMD test system with unknown AMD processor (Intel wannabe Athlon FX 60). If there is no proof on this benchmark values of different hardware testing sources the values does not have validity.
Also the mentioned fear benchmark values of another site with FX60 only feature two Geforce 7800GTX video cards.
At the most Annonymous blog posters: your behavior is mostly very primitive!

7:36 AM, March 09, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

bene - Conroe that was benchmarked on IDF was an early engineering sample too.... and it is +30% faster than the best AMD CPU available today. Intel rules

8:10 AM, March 09, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716&p=1

benchmarks retested with latest BIOS for DFI board.
Result?
Conroe still better by a wide margin (+20%)

8:20 AM, March 09, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716&p=1

LOL

8:22 AM, March 09, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What amazes me is anyone who believes in an AMD system being set up by Intel as being a credible one.

Plus, lets just stop and think for a second. If the performance Intel is claiming were even true, the products are not out and won't be for months. Within those months, come from AMD, new sockets and new cores with K8L 65nm at the tail end of 2006. AMD isn't sitting idly by, and the company's strategy is damn near flawless.

Consider those then think about this Front Side Bus situation and you definitely know why Intel will still suffer in the server space regardless of NGMA.

Lastly, Intel is moronic for hyping up new technology, because it's throwing salt on the wound. They are reporting market losses and revenue decrement. "Intel"ists will now want to wait for NGMA, so sales will drop. In servers, well, AMD is just plain king.

8:32 AM, March 09, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again Sharikou is lying as a dog. Sharikou's ignorance and BS on the BIOS issue demonstrates that he is an ignorant who does not understand the technical details. Sharikou is an ignorant who does not understand the technical details.

10:50 AM, March 09, 2006  
Anonymous Dad said...

Anonymous - your starting to sound like a 6 year old.

1:44 PM, March 09, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://techreport.com/etc/2006q1/conroe/index.x?pg=1

"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."

5:29 PM, March 09, 2006  
Blogger anomy said...

But Sharikou, whatever you said about BIOS versions proves you are not credible!!!

Look at the new benchmarks using the newest benchmarks!!! You can see the lead is there, its now even GREATER!!

And its 6.00PG, not PC, which is a different thing, as all the modern Award BIOS has that number.

7:18 PM, March 09, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whatever, it was an INTEL setup, didn't pass anti-doping tests.

8:26 PM, March 09, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou, Ph.D you are as biased as they get man. Your ignorance is only surpassed by your bias for AMD. Just looking at the previous post you have made you have 6 Intel bashing posts, 3 AMD killing intel posts out of 10 total posts. Everything you came up with soo far to explain those Amd fx60 numbers have been proven WRONG yet you continue to post about how you have proof and go to raul's website to get his acceptance. Give it up man. Why dont you type up about AM2 and the technologies we will be seeing from it instead of wasting your time trying to discredit a company that you obviously hate and passing it off as an expert opinion of sorts. You know that AMD has nothing substantial coming that will rival the conroe atleast for this year. So instead of bashing intel just stop with your ignorance and talk about how a move to ddr2 and 65nm will cut that 20%+ lead. You also do realize that the machine was the soon to be Top of the line FX 62 going against a mainstream 2.67 conroe, there is a 3Ghz conroe EE version planned why dont you type up how ddr2 switch for the AM2 socket will pwn that as well while you at it, you are lying about everything else mite as well add that in too.

3:01 AM, March 10, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All, I have been readng all of the comments on this and other sites and all I can say is.....We'll see. Intel is looking good at this point, but you're comparing apples and oranges. The AMD core has been around for years now and Intel has just had to switch theirs to get any improvement out of their processors. The move to DDR2 might not produce the performance gains that I personally would like to see, but neither did Intels move to DDR2. Intel's Conroe is based off of 65nm while AMD is still using 90nm and producing chips under Intel's announced TDP. AMD will not be switching to 65nm until approximately the first of the year. AMD still has time to catch up and at this point I do think those benchmarks, might be close to the truth if not true. All thing's aside it will be interesting to see how thing's develop both in price and performance.

11:23 AM, March 10, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr.,

You can not have it both ways. You can not claim something and after somebody posed an argument you point them to vodooopc website because they know better than you. If you claim you are a phD and have an opinion based of your technical experience, then stick to your claim and defend it. Otherwise, you lose credibility. And you really did blow it this tim Doc. Doing what you did reduce you to being just an Intel bashing guy. Nothing more!

10:48 PM, March 11, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good god.. this is a test set up by the manufacturer of the new product ! what do you expect benchmarks that say "our new product just sucks !" ?????

Marketing 101 people create a buzz !! Create an image !! Create a sense that something new is just arouind the corner.. even if it isn't.

Don't take marketing hype as gospel ESPECIALLY when it's vaporware 6 months off..

Jeez.. did IQ points drop while I was away ????

10:37 PM, March 12, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Conroe vs. Athlon64 benchmarks are a chipset fake not a Bios fake.

Selected Software and no neutral analysis. Forget about +20% lead for conroe.

2:19 AM, March 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Independent test, FX60 does 214.4 FPS in UT2004

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3261_3576616__7

INTEL's IDF setup, Conroe does 189.3 fps at the same setting

http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx

10:35 PM, March 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

See
amd complaint

7:59 PM, April 11, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou, what is your grade level in AMD? Or you are just a contracted writer for AMD?

10:38 PM, May 18, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home