Tuesday, November 22, 2011

AMD Bulldozer Opteron pwns Intel Xeon in Enterprise

It is well understood that AMD Bulldozer is designed for the enterprise. Its 16-cores are like the big guns of the battleship which (unlike the single shot Remington rifle) deliver a heavy payload. Indeed, when it comes to mission critical enterprise applications, the Bulldozer simply destroys Intel Xeon. We are not talking about the Cinebench and SuperPI that AnandTech is good at, but TPC-C, SPEC JBB2005, SAP ERP, etc, for the commercial enterprise of the capitalist world. AMD beats Intel by such a big percentage, it opens a performance gap that Intel will struggle to overcome.

First, SAP Enterprise Resource Planning.

The Opteron 6200 achieves 31720 SAPS. The Xeon X5690 struggles for 28480 SAPS. The Opteron achieves 5805 users and the Xeon X5690 handles 5220.The Opteron is indisputably 10% faster.

Second, TPC-C -- Transaction Processing Performance Council Online Transaction Processing.

An HP DL385 armed with 2x AMD Opteron 6200 system achieves 1.208 million tpmC, while an HP DL380 with 2x Xeon X5690 gets 1.024m tpmC. The Bulldozer Opteron bulldozed Xeon X5690 by a healthy 18%.

Some lesser educated writers say the AMD server is 18% faster, but 33.8% more expensive ($0.87 for the Opteron system vs $0.65 per tmpC for Xeon ). These lesser educated writers fail to notice that the price difference is due to the fact that the AMD system can handle and has more storage. The AMD system has 90 big SSDs, costing 1.124 million USD. The Intel Xeon system has fewer SSD drives costing $0.485 million USD. That alone is a $639,000. cost difference. If you put the same number of SSDs into the Xeon system, it would cost $1.3 million, resulting in a $1.27/tmpC price/performance.

In other words, an equally populated Xeon system is 18% slower and 46% more expensive than the Opteron in transaction processing.

Third, SPEC JBB2005 -- Enterprise Java Server Benchmark. This benchmark runs a 3-tier enterprise environment.

The 2p Opteron 6200 system scores 1.254 million bops. The 2p Xeon X5690 does 0.9753 million bops. The Bulldozer Opteron smashes Xeon X5690 by 28.6%.

When we go to 4p, the Opteron 6200 scales almost linearly, attaining 2.427 million bops.

These results are consistent with our previous observation that the Opteron 6200 is 30% faster than the Xeon X5690 in integer performance gauged by SpecInt2006_rate.

Clearly, Bulldozer has an inherent advantage over Xeon. Some users noted that even on desktop, when you don't use applications specifically optimized for Intel, the Bulldozer wins.

How do Intelers argue against these hard numbers? Some of them say the Xeon X5690 is a four-year old obsolete chip, so the comparison to the all new Bulldozer is unfair again. Well, I tend to agree. Why stuck with old generation technology when you can have the younger, higher performing and less costly Bulldozer? Agree?


Labels:

171 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hahaha. Using "pwn" this time eh? If you read the MORE EDUCATED interpretation of ALL the tests you mentioned and linked here:

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/11/bulldozer-server-benchmarks-are-here-and-theyre-a-catastrophe.ars/2

You'd get a better understanding of the scope of those scores. Reviewed by an actual systems programmer/professional, unlike this, um "Ph. D"

Quote (and just one of them):

"The blog post neglects some key details... like the price. The older Opteron 6100-based system cost $412,000. The Xeon system cost $662,000. The new Opteron 6200-based system? A cool $1 million and change. All of sudden, that's not looking quite so good. Sure, the new system is 71 percent faster than the old. But it's also 150 percent more expensive. It's 50 percent more expensive than the Xeon system for only an 18 percent improvement in performance."

The blog didn't mention that the comparison was done with the older generation Xeons.

Please. Do a more educated review before you make an uneducated/misleading conclusion!

12:46 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aww. You beat me to it! Oh well, here's another snippet from the review:

"If you look further afield, the 6200 system looks even worse. AMD may be comparing against two socket systems, but we don't have to. A four socket Xeon X7560 system (2.26 GHz, eight cores per processor, 16 threads per processor) system, with a total system cost of $880,000, achieved 1.8 million tpmC. Sure, the processors cost almost four thousand bucks apiece. But it doesn't matter, because the total system is cheaper and much faster than the new Bulldozers. It also uses slightly less power: 2.46 W/KtpmC for the Xeon versus 2.49 for the 6200."

And another, which highlights how neutered BD is:

"SPEC JBB2005 is a benchmark that shows near-linear scaling with core count. An Opteron 6100 system built around not two but four of the same 12 core 25GHz 6180 SE processors with 128GB RAM posts a score of almost exactly double the two processor system, with 1.95 million bops. So the question must be asked, wouldn't AMD have done just as well to build a 16 core version of its previous generation design? A hypothetical 16 core Opteron built around the previous generation "Magny-Cours" architecture would have the same 33 percent increase in thread count, and so would likely perform as well in this kind of benchmark—but it would also avoid the single-threaded performance regressions found in the desktop benchmarks."

And for SAP, which I myself strongly agree on:

"For the workloads such as SAP where the performance has scaled, Opteron 6200 still represents an reasonable upgrade for existing 6100 customers—but it leaves us wondering what might have happened if AMD had simply extended its old architecture. Another four cores in a Magny-Cours processor would show close to the same 33 percent gain, and would do so without compromising single-threaded performance.

The situation up against Intel is even more dire. In AnandTech's benchmarks, the 6200 failed to beat Intel's Xeon processors, in spite of Intel's core and thread deficit. In others, 6200 pulled ahead, with a lead topping out at about 30 percent."

I do enjoy rebutting Sharikou's statements. He makes it SO easy!

12:55 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TPC-C, really? For muticore/multichip platforms? How relevant is that test? I did a rebuttal from other sites about how unrepresentative TPC-C would be when you go up the core scale. It means very little on the blog you just linked, FYI.

1:01 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Clearly, Bulldozer has an inherent advantage over Xeon. Some users noted that even on desktop, when you don't use applications specifically optimized for Intel, the Bulldozer wins."

REALLY? Stop your cut and paste and show some proof! Troll.

Prove which software is specifically optimised for Intel. Microsoft? Adobe? Autodesk?

1:05 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"These results are consistent with *OUR* previous observation that the Opteron 6200 is 30% faster than the Xeon X5690 in integer performance gauged by SpecInt2006_rate."

Ooooooh! Shari's starting to hear voices in his head. How many are "we"?

1:12 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SPEC JBB2005 is a bench that shows the scaling of a multicore subpart. It is a good metric for server room evaluation. It does not, however, show the deeper, more important issue of overall performance when using real apps.

In practice, running several VM clients (which most servers now do) do not scale as indicated by the SPEC bench and thus is not as useful or as important as the blogger thinks.

I still can't figure why techs still lean heavily on artificial benches instead of using script-triggers of simultaneous, real-word apps, each on a VM client.

Indeed, Sharikou can be regarded a a novice when it comes to these matters. He should learn to blog tech matters carefully instead of carelessly.

1:28 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WE have a FX-8150 at the office to run the CS5 suite. Which software runs faster on BD than my 2600K at home?

Why don't you post which common software are those that you speak of instead of just trolling useless trash?

1:37 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here (Ars post):

"The other thing about server benchmarks is that they're almost all a sales pitch. Enthusiast sites are more than willing to run desktop-type benchmarks that show products in a bad light—they want to help people make informed buying decisions. Big server benchmarks are the almost exclusive domain of the hardware vendors, however. If processor X performs horribly at benchmark Y, the vendors are under no obligation to publish the results—and often won't."

Again, your modus of stupidly relying on press-releases and product brochures never ceases to amaze me. Then again, you need to troll...

1:45 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ROFL, HP server used in specjbb test is 2 opterons, 128gb ram and single 120GB SSD disk, and costs rougly $9678, where did asstechnica got that million bucks they talk about?

2:08 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"ROFL, HP server used in specjbb test is 2 opterons, 128gb ram and single 120GB SSD disk, and costs rougly $9678, where did asstechnica got that million bucks they talk about?"

Reading comprehension problem eh?

The quote was from TPC-C not SPECJBB:

(sample unit from the article):

http://www.tpc.org/results/individual_results/HP/HP_DL380G7_TPCC_110504_ES.pdf

Are you an idiot? moron? Are all Sharikou supporters retarded? The quote even comes direct from Sharikou's HP brochure.

2:20 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My bad, here's the 1 million. It didn't come from ars, it came directly quoted from HP's Disclosure:

http://www.tpc.org/results/individual_results/HP/HP_ProLiant_DL385G7_TPCC_111114_01_es.pdf

Stop talking and thinking, your brain hemmorage will only get worse. Loser.

2:31 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL. You just PWNED a Sharikou guy big time. Or was that poster Shari himself? The poster was obviously an illiterate moron which fits Shari's profile.

4:36 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It took him only 2 guesses, which is above average Intel fan rate of success...to actually prove that Intel got owned in SpecJBB, LOLOLOLOL

4:49 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It took him only 2 guesses, which is above average Intel fan rate of success...to actually prove that Intel got owned in SpecJBB, LOLOLOLOL"

Another stupid fan.

The first link was a sample as stated in the post. He did not need to add the other link to prove the point but he did anyways to completley pwn the douche.

Looks like I pwned YOU! Idiot.

4:55 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It took him only 2 guesses, which is above average Intel fan rate of success...to actually prove that Intel got owned in SpecJBB, LOLOLOLOL"

2 Guesses? What a retard. You didn't even get it at ALL! Your rebuttal are so lobotomised, even a child can rebut you! All you Sharicunt fans sure need to go back to kinder... Ok, repeat after me: "A B C D E..."

5:23 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are the Sharikou (NOT AMD) fans always like this when they post? Pretending that they have a point? LOL.

Googled here when I typed Xeon vs 6200 and now I see that this place is a pointless and baseless blog.

Cheers

From a 61xx user

5:37 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, to sum it up:

AMD fragged Intel at specJBB and SAP, BUT BUT BUT, although it fragged it in TPC-C too, it did on a more expensive setup, in a category where noone ask about price anyway?
LOL

5:52 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hahaha! Gaining SOME artificial bench scores over 4-YEAR OLD last generation server parts and LOSING at the real-world server apps while being MORE EXPENSIVE and slightly higher power is a WIN for AMD?????

Go check the links. I beg you, PLEASE DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

Or go check your brain, then call me in the morning.

Stop making fools of yourselves. It's OVER, concentrate on what's next... Being desperate only hurts your cause.

Sheesh, why don't these morons comprehend links and research???

6:30 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Relax, they have their imaginary super AMD... let them be, it won't change the reality that server or desktop, BD is a meh product.

6:32 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Hahaha! Gaining SOME artificial bench scores over 4-YEAR OLD "

Lol, look at

http://ark.intel.com/products/52576/Intel-Xeon-Processor-X5690-%2812M-Cache-3_46-GHz-6_40-GTs-Intel-QPI%29

dumbster, since when is Q1/2011 4 years old? I bet you still use 60MHz Pentium one for your claculations...you know, one that guessed results instead computing them

6:34 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hahahaha! I'll PWN you now stupid!

The X5690 is based on the NEHALEM GENERATION architecture. Only the cache size, cores and process have changed. Still the same arch SINCE 2008!

Maximum retardation detected... do your homework!!!

PWNED!!! God, that was easy!

6:56 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shit. You beat me to it!!! Comparing the AMD's latest generation with Intel's so-last-2008generation is so lame. he was even proud to link posts!!! You took the pwnage away from me- I made the original post!

6:59 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well the 60 MHz Pentium is far faster than the Tea leave you're using...

L O S E R !

7:00 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Indeed. The 5690 is based on the last-gen Westmere-Gulftown arch. (late 2008). Sandy Bridge's arch addresses VM, HT and microarchitecture speedups that has significant gains across the board.

The poster should have been aware of this, but instead stupidly replied right away. Must be Shari.

7:08 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""Hahaha! Gaining SOME artificial bench scores over 4-YEAR OLD "
Lol, look at
http://ark.intel.com/products/52576/Intel-Xeon-Processor-X5690-%2812M-Cache-3_46-GHz-6_40-GTs-Intel-QPI%29
dumbster, since when is Q1/2011 4 years old? I bet you still use 60MHz Pentium one for your claculations...you know, one that guessed results instead computing them"

You lack the COMMON SENSE to understand the CONTEXT of the "4-years old" part of the statement (being Nehalem). I pray you won't have any children. Your genes will dumb us all!

My god, only an Idiot would defend ACTUAL processor releases 4 years apart- oh wait, you're dumb enough to do it!

The funny part was that you were smug enough to even post a link- LOL! Can't wait to show this to the guys!

7:22 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So, to sum it up:
AMD fragged Intel at specJBB and SAP, BUT BUT BUT, although it fragged it in TPC-C too, it did on a more expensive setup, in a category where noone ask about price anyway?
LOL"

Funny you should say that.

Didn't your Sharikou empahasized the importance of AMD being cost-effective in the server arena throughout his blogs?

And quoting artificial and selected benches don't win you any points... or are you dense enough to figure that out by yourself?

7:44 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maximum retardation detected in previous 4-5 posts, ROFL

You guys are so stupid that you don't realize that max number of cores in SB Xeons is 4...and if AMD compared Interlagos with those, you'd cry about unfairness of it all. Face it, AMD chose Intels best and pwned it hard

8:59 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^^ Huh?

Interlagos did not pwn x5690.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT PWN IS??? Do you have an understanding what "TOTAL" means? It's not a few chosen scores, it's the whole suite, you fraud.

The point was that Intelagos was also being beaten by BOTH 61xx AND the older Gulftowns using REAL-WORLD APPS. Your half artificial SPEC and half HP brochure releases, are those definitive tests for you? RFOL!!!

Okay, you don't get it, let me spell that for you:

R.E.A.L. W.O.R.L.D. A.P.P.S.

Do the math, do the research, Shari, we know of no poster who is that stupid unless it's you!

PWNED!

9:24 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You guys are so stupid that you don't realize that max number of cores in SB Xeons is 4...and if AMD compared Interlagos with those, you'd cry about unfairness of it all. Face it, AMD chose Intels best and pwned it hard"

Shifting Goalposts I see. They were only emphasizing the fact that there was a disparity in HARDWARE comparison in addition to the KNOWN FACT that there are MANY NON-ARTIFICIAL suites (along with the incoming Linux ones) that BEAT BD (Both Xeon and Magny-Cours). Which makes it even more pathetic.

Your use of the words "Total" and "Hard" makes you sound more like some desperate idiot. Stop abusing the word and embarrassing yourself!

Until you show us a 100% TOTAL win (okay, even 75%), do you even have the right to use PWN/TOTAL. Shithead.

9:40 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You guys are so stupid that you don't realize that max number of cores in SB Xeons is 4...and if AMD compared Interlagos with those, you'd cry about unfairness of it all. Face it, AMD chose Intels best and pwned it hard"

Oh yes, you're right. But you forget one thing: Those SBs will MURDER Interlagos when that happens. So it's a DOUBLE-WHAMMY lose (BD gets beat with half the cores!)! Stop assuming or even dream that BD will even hold a candle against those when a SB desktop part PWNS BD already! LOSER!

9:48 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Damn guys, must be hard to be Intel fan these days while Bulldozer is bitchslaping it left and right

10:29 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Damn guys, must be hard to be Intel fan these days while Bulldozer is bitchslaping it left and right"

Look kids, a Troll.

10:32 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Damn guys, must be hard to be Intel fan these days while Bulldozer is bitchslaping it left and right"

Haha. What Sharifans are sure to say when there's nothing else to show for and when thinking for proof will only hurt. This is fun!

I bet Shari is losing money with his AMD stock.

10:35 AM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" Why stuck with old generation technology when you can have the younger, higher performing and less costly Bulldozer? Agree?"

Your engrish is showing you lying fuck. Ph.d? Did you write your thesis with crayon at clown college?

1:10 PM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Why stuck with old generation technology when you can have the younger, higher performing and less costly Bulldozer? Agree?"

Higher performing? Less costly? LOL!

1:20 PM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We all know his Ph.d is fake. I mean, look at his writing style that's immature and unprofessional. We all know it's true, an this guy calls it Ad Hominem attacks.

I'm calling it questionable integrity of source.

1:34 PM, November 22, 2011  
Blogger Evil_Merlin said...

Lesser educated? Unlike you, I actually EARNED my PhD.

Poor Sharikook. AMD is dying.

Maybe you'll go with them.

No one will miss you.

2:07 PM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aww Merlin, speak for yerself! I WILL miss Shari's stupid, unresearched trolls and antics!

2:27 PM, November 22, 2011  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D. said...

Merlin, show me some peer-reviewed original research you published, if any.

2:36 PM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What an Intel fanboys circlejerk, lol

2:39 PM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moron .... circle jerk? no it is called AMD flies spinning around nasty shit ... (AMD poop) Damn Sharipoop ... you actually respond ... well not to technical issues but to some one that might actually have a PhD unlike you.
Close this shot hole and go back to AmdZone where idiots like you talk about issues they dont understand ... Fucktard Matrix, fuckstein and sci-kiss-my-ass

3:28 PM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharipoop .. this is what you needs with damn friles around you ,,


$35 bucks + 6 bucks for shipping
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Horse-Tailsaver-Pervents-Tail-Damage-Fly-Swatting-/250793509874

3:31 PM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With more than 235 Cray (Nasdaq: CRAY) XE6 cabinets based on nearly 50,000 AMD Opteron 6200 Series processors, the Blue Waters supercomputer is expected to deliver sustained performance of more than one petaflops and achieve breakthroughs to model a broad range of phenomena including: the evolution of the universe since the Big Bang, the formation of tornadoes, the mechanism by which viruses enter cells, and many more science and engineering applications.

3:38 PM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes idiot
I am sure it can replicate your small brain cell as well.
and all AMD created is called deep-shit

From BIG BANG to DEEPSHIT

3:45 PM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"With more than 235 Cray (Nasdaq: CRAY) XE6 cabinets based on nearly 50,000 AMD Opteron 6200 Series processors, the Blue Waters supercomputer is expected to deliver sustained performance of more than one petaflops and achieve breakthroughs to model a broad range of phenomena including: the evolution of the universe since the Big Bang, the formation of tornadoes, the mechanism by which viruses enter cells, and many more science and engineering applications."

What you fail to mention, DUMBASS, is that most of the single and double precision FLOATS performance will come from the paired arrays of NVidia Tesla GPUs. The 128 bit extended will be from the 6200 but the Petaflop measurements are primarily from the Teslas...

Stop massaging data to move more onto AMDs favor. Typical.

4:33 PM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou. Since YOU are the one who claims a Ph.D, and YOU claimed to have published/written some work elsewhere, why DON'T YOU start showing instead of your usual mouth fart.

Stop spewing such dribble on your blog if you ain't got nothing to show for it. Stop throwing back the question to us because YOU MADE THE CLAIM!

Be professional about it or just shut up.

4:39 PM, November 22, 2011  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D. said...

I don't have to show my papers, because I know none of you can understand them.

4:57 PM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I don't have to show my papers, because I know none of you can understand them."

Really? What's the harm in trying? Besides, we don't have to understand it. All we need is to know if you do tell the truth.

Don't you get it? You are OBLIGATED to prove your credentials since you CLAIMED it anyway. Besides, you did say it's published ONLINE, therefore I'm sure some are readily available to the public.

Let's not fool ourselves. You know as well as EVERYONE that if you dodge this request, no matter what the excuse, you yourself will prove that you are a fraud with your claimed credentials.

So I ask, with all sincerity, prove your credential claims.

Thank You.

5:05 PM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh boy. This I gotta see!

5:08 PM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, prove to these Intertards that you mean business!

5:09 PM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's "Inteltards" you AMD moron. You can't even spell! He won't prove anything, that's for sure. All Sharikook will do is spew out more excuses that we readers are below him and his materials are too complicated for us. But we all know better, whether AMD or Intel camps, and the Ars and Anand visitors as well, that Sharikou is a lying fraud and will wriggle himself out of this!

5:14 PM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I don't have to show my papers, because I know none of you can understand them."

Oh God, you are such a smug asshole, a REAL asshole! I bet you are going to ignore your readers' request coz you are truly a BS fake.

I DARE YOU TO PROVE US WRONG AND I'LL SHUT UP.

5:20 PM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Freelance journalist on IT matters. Some of my writings have been published on online IT journals."

Hey, Mr. PhD, how hard is it to prove your claims? Most of us are WAITING.

Btw. I'm a Phenom II user.

5:25 PM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh c'mon guys, give him some slack. What's wrong with pretending to be a professional and a PHD? He's done you no harm. We all know he's a fake anyway whether we are AMDers or Intelers. But we are still entertained by this site and his antics. Sure it has little technical value, but we didn't come here for that!

5:32 PM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shut up and give Sharikou the chance to prove himself.

5:40 PM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shari,

How come you won't answer you cell when it rings?

I can't help to think whether I did something wrong.

I have introspected for a while but I have no clear answers.

Did I penetrate you too hard? Too fast? Not fast enough?

Did you swallow too much? Was it too warm? Too cold? Too viscuous?

You always asked for more, and I gave you all you asked.

Is Baron inside you? Or are you inside him?

Why won't you answer my calls anymore? Please, won't your answer?

I need you. I miss you.

wuttz

6:11 PM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SHUT UP EVERYONE! Let's hear what Sharikou has to say about his credentials... Let him prove to us all that he is what he says he is!

6:16 PM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He won't say anything more about it because he's a liar.

The very fact that he comes out with barely intelligible "articles" then responds by saying "I don't have to show my papers, because I know none of you can understand them." only further proves the fact that he is a fraud and a liar.

At the minimum he should be able to provide the institute from which he earned his ph.d and what his thesis was based on. But he won't do that either.

Why? Because he's a lying piece of garbage with the technical background of a high school student and the writing skills of a third-world blogger.

But the base fact is, he's a liar.

8:20 PM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come on you mutherfvcker, Sharikou

Prove to us that you have a Ph.D. from an accredited university.

Who was your professor?
What was your thesis?
When did you defend it?
Where are you published?

Let's see it. The world is waiting.

If you don't respond, you will be proven to be a lying fraud.

Think you can avoid answering?

LMFAO

11:47 PM, November 22, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree. His writing style is so unprofessional, immature and biased yet he claims a Doctorate and accuracy in his blog. I have never seen such an extreme level of trolling before. Especially someone who boasts and flaunt his credentials and other published works yet refuses to show links or evidences to them. No wonder people don't take him seriously.

2:44 AM, November 23, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gosh. We all know his tactics and this will EXACTLY happen:

He will NOT post AND respond for a few weeks till we "forget" this credential/credibility thing and he will start blogging again as if nothing happened- with his usual BS of course.

Or, he'll just immediately ignore everything completely, as if nothing happened. Besides, it's His Blog, He IS GOD.

Did I get it right, Shari?

3:58 AM, November 23, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trolls trolling trolls.

:P

He's a lying ass-clown.

If he does have a ph.d its one he paid 250 for on some online "accredited" university.

That's why I come here and constantly bash this loser...if he did hold a valid a ph.d, and COULD provide valid credentials, and links to his works, and information on his thesis Which I'm sure a lot of us would understand)then I would stop trolling and engage in meaningful debate...

However, the proof of his fraud is *everywhere* on this blog. He can't string together an intelligent paragraph, his grasp of the english language and grammar is marginal. He uses words like "frag", "pwn", etc to try and convey valid arguments. He ignores data. That last fact alone should be definitive proof that he is a lying shitbag.

So - until this numbfuck waste of sperm can deliver on proof of his claims of holding a ph.d I will absolutely continue to come here and troll and belittle and bash and whatever. Because I hate little shit liars, and Sharikou is exactly that.

8:30 AM, November 23, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes I agree that he exaggerates data to the point of ridicule that I think he honestly believes himself. Look, I am an AMD Fan but his stupid interpretation and presentation of data alone verifies that he does not have a Ph.D.

He WILL ignore the credentials request. I know that. You know that.

I just come back here for the novelty and entertainment. Plus the OBVIOUS fact that he himself comments in his own blog (again, we all know that). When a poster praises him, well, guess who that person is!

8:45 AM, November 23, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PhD Phd Phd this is Lex calling

You see this note: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-globalfoundries-28nm-apu-tsmc,14073.html


What is happening please to tell. Intel going BK? Looks like AMD can't even find a place to fabricate their designs.... Thoughts doc?

4:48 PM, November 23, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

28nm WHO???????????

5:14 PM, November 23, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Ph.D. start showing credentials and credibility like you claim.

Well, we'll just egg you anyways coz you now as well as we ALL know that you're a FAKE! You won't be showing anything since you don't have anything to show. Fucking Liar and You Know It.

5:44 PM, November 23, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ph.D??? With that childish, exaggerated, uber-biased writing style? Bullshit! I call FRAUD!

He's NOT doing AMD any favours.

5:50 PM, November 23, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come on you mutherfvcker, Sharikou

Prove to us that you have a Ph.D. from an accredited university.

Who was your professor?
What was your thesis?
When did you defend it?
Where are you published?

Let's see it. The world is waiting.

Pretty simple. You either have it or you don't.

If you don't respond or respond ambiguously, you will be proven to be a lying fraud.

Think you can avoid answering?

Charade is over, fvckstick

LMFAO

6:31 PM, November 23, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Doctor doctor Lexington Steele here again.. remember my post from a few years ago. I told you then and remind you again AMD was finished, never a matter of if but only when. The when is now, their manufacturing is broken, they are crapping and their manufacturing process at GF is right up there with the post here.

" McGregor said that should the 28-nm Globalfoundries made APUs really be scrapped, it would cause a “world of hurt” for AMD, which would be left a generation behind its competition for most of 2012, making AMD even less significant in the market."

“AMD just doesn’t matter. Even Intel doesn’t care about AMD anymore, the firm doesn’t even register on Intel’s radar, it’s that far behind,” McGregor noted.

Tick tock Tick Tock... ROLF

You having some Turkey or are you the turkey getting stuffed ??

9:37 PM, November 23, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Showing pretty pictures and dodging credential requests from your readers won't make you any more credible than the fraud and clown that you are.

11:46 PM, November 23, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hahaha. Pathetic. This is NOT about AMD, this is about your boasting around your FAKE CREDIBILITY. You can't even show a single little proof of your stupid claims. Well, where is it???

11:50 PM, November 23, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Sharikou, "Ph. D."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A REQUEST FROM ALL YOUR READERS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

YOU BOASTED AND FLAUNTED YOUR PH. D. AND THAT YOU HAVE CLAIMED TO HAVE WRITTEN SEVERAL ARTICLES FOR DIFFERENT REPUTABLE SITES.

WE RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR EVEN A SLIVER OF PROOF.

INSTEAD YOU REPLIED THAT *WE WERE TOO DUMB TO UNDERSTAND THEM,* AND REFUSED TO SHOW LINKS.

YET YOU CONTINUE TO BOAST THAT YOU DID ALL THESE.

WELL, WE CALL YOUR BLUFF SINCE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE FROM YOUR WRITING STYLE SHOW THAT YOU ARE A BIASED, LOWLY EDUCATED FRAUD. AND YOUR DISTORTIONS HAVE BECOME FALSIFIED HOPES FOR PEOPLE WHO ADMIRE AMD.

FYI. THIS IS *NOT* AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK (IF YOU DO UNDERSTAND THE TERM) THIS IS A CALLING FOR PROOF OF YOUR CLAIMS. HOW CAN YOU EXPECT ANYONE TO RESPECT YOUR ARTICLES IF YOU CAN'T EVEN PROVIDE TRUTH INTO YOUR OWN CREDIBILITY?

TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE, YOU CONSIDER ALL OF YOUR READERS OF LOW INTELLIGENCE!

DON'T YOU DARE MAKE AMD A LAUGHINGSTOCK OF THE WORLD BY STUPIDLY REPRESENTING THEIR CAUSE AND MAKING AMD LOOK MORE DESPERATE BY USING GROSS EXAGGERATIONS AND DISTORTIONS OF TERMINOLOGIES AND NEWS TIDBITS.

I RESPECTFULLY ASK EVRYONE WHO POST HERE TO KEEP SPAMMING HIM FOR PROOF & CREDENTIALS OF HIS CLAIMS. TO PENIX, THIS IS NOT ABOUT AMD AND I HOPE THAT YOU'LL RESPECT MY REQUEST.

THANK YOU.

1:04 AM, November 24, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

happy turkey day!

9:25 AM, November 24, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

An example of pure stupidity that contradicts his Ph.D, not onlt because he gives snide remarks and insults:

"Some lesser educated writers say the AMD server is 18% faster, but 33.8% more expensive ($0.87 for the Opteron system vs $0.65 per tmpC for Xeon ). These lesser educated writers fail to notice that the price difference is due to the fact that the AMD system can handle and has more storage. The AMD system has 90 big SSDs, costing 1.124 million USD. The Intel Xeon system has only $0.485 million USD of SSD storage. That alone is a $639,000. cost difference. If you put the same SSDs into the Xeon system, it would cost $1.3 million, resulting in a $1.27/tmpC price/performance."

DIDN'T IT OCCUR TO YOU, SHARIFRAUD THAT IF THEY USED THE SAME AMOUNT OF SUPERFAST SSDS ON THE XEON SYSTEMS, THE TPC-C SCORES WILL BE WAAAY HIGHER???

Sharifraud. Your sources are from an HP brochure. Even if they are SPEC-certified, their configurations were still disparate!

10:01 AM, November 24, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know, such blind stupidity is CLEAR evidence of his FAKE PHD. TP-C is storage-transaction intensive! Sharifraud didn't even see that and instead started insulting everyone else.

Stop boasting your PHD and Articles if you REFUSE to show some evidence!!!

FAKE PIECE OF SHIT!!!

10:07 AM, November 24, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Some lesser educated writers say the AMD server is 18% faster, but 33.8% more expensive ($0.87 for the Opteron system vs $0.65 per tmpC for Xeon ). These lesser educated writers fail to notice that the price difference is due to the fact that the AMD system can handle and has more storage. The AMD system has 90 big SSDs, costing 1.124 million USD. The Intel Xeon system has only $0.485 million USD of SSD storage. That alone is a $639,000. cost difference. If you put the same SSDs into the Xeon system, it would cost $1.3 million, resulting in a $1.27/tmpC price/performance."

Hahaha! Stupid Sharifuck. He must have the mind of a kid! He thinks that SSDs don't speed up your system AND benchmarks. PURE FAKE!

And the funny thing is, he unwittingly flashes his stupidity in comprehension and evaluation in his own blog! Epic. I'll use his blog as an example to my students of the classic example of pure dumbness!!!

10:12 AM, November 24, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Sharikou, "Ph. D."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A REQUEST FROM ALL YOUR READERS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

YOU BOASTED AND FLAUNTED YOUR PH. D. AND THAT YOU HAVE CLAIMED TO HAVE WRITTEN SEVERAL ARTICLES FOR DIFFERENT REPUTABLE SITES.

WE RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR EVEN A SLIVER OF PROOF.

INSTEAD YOU REPLIED THAT *WE WERE TOO DUMB TO UNDERSTAND THEM,* AND REFUSED TO SHOW LINKS.

YET YOU CONTINUE TO BOAST THAT YOU DID ALL THESE.

WELL, WE CALL YOUR BLUFF SINCE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE FROM YOUR WRITING STYLE SHOW THAT YOU ARE A BIASED, LOWLY EDUCATED FRAUD. AND YOUR DISTORTIONS HAVE BECOME FALSIFIED HOPES FOR PEOPLE WHO ADMIRE AMD.

FYI. THIS IS *NOT* AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK (IF YOU DO UNDERSTAND THE TERM) THIS IS A CALLING FOR PROOF OF YOUR CLAIMS. HOW CAN YOU EXPECT ANYONE TO RESPECT YOUR ARTICLES IF YOU CAN'T EVEN PROVIDE TRUTH INTO YOUR OWN CREDIBILITY?

TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE, YOU CONSIDER ALL OF YOUR READERS OF LOW INTELLIGENCE!

DON'T YOU DARE MAKE AMD A LAUGHINGSTOCK OF THE WORLD BY STUPIDLY REPRESENTING THEIR CAUSE AND MAKING AMD LOOK MORE DESPERATE BY USING GROSS EXAGGERATIONS AND DISTORTIONS OF TERMINOLOGIES AND NEWS TIDBITS.

I RESPECTFULLY ASK EVRYONE WHO POST HERE TO KEEP SPAMMING HIM FOR PROOF & CREDENTIALS OF HIS CLAIMS. TO PENIX, THIS IS NOT ABOUT AMD AND I HOPE THAT YOU'LL RESPECT MY REQUEST.

THANK YOU.

10:13 AM, November 24, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL, someone posted Sharifuck's 1 million comment on ARS. Let's see what Per Bright has to say to this retarded loser.

Even a kid knows that speeding up your systems with SSDs will also affect benchmarks. Sharitard is sooo stupid and I mean this as a fact, not as an insult!

SHARITARD!

10:35 AM, November 24, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a dumb fuck! ROFL! Sharitard was so blinded with bias that when he made the $1.3 million SSD statement, HE INADVERTENTLY EXPLAINED WHY THE AMD SETUP WAS MUCH FASTER AT TPC-C!!! And thus, if both were configured EQUALLY WITH THE SAME UBER-FAST SSDs.

Thanks Sharifuck for your stupidity and INVALIDATING YOUR OWN STATEMENTS!

1:39 PM, November 24, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please include link to ARS that has this idiot farting.

2:02 PM, November 24, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come on you mutherfvcker, Sharikou

Prove to us that you have a Ph.D. from an accredited university.

Who was your professor?
What was your thesis?
When did you defend it?
Where are you published?

Let's see it. The world is waiting.

Pretty simple. You either have it or you don't.

If you don't respond or respond ambiguously, you will be proven to be a lying fraud.

Think you can avoid answering? No, it will only get worse.

Charade is over, fvckstick

LMFAO

4:14 PM, November 24, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Sharikou, "Ph. D."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A REQUEST FROM ALL YOUR READERS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

YOU BOASTED AND FLAUNTED YOUR PH. D. AND THAT YOU HAVE CLAIMED TO HAVE WRITTEN SEVERAL ARTICLES FOR DIFFERENT REPUTABLE SITES.

WE RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR EVEN A SLIVER OF PROOF.

INSTEAD YOU REPLIED THAT *WE WERE TOO DUMB TO UNDERSTAND THEM,* AND REFUSED TO SHOW LINKS.

YET YOU CONTINUE TO BOAST THAT YOU DID ALL THESE.

WELL, WE CALL YOUR BLUFF SINCE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE FROM YOUR WRITING STYLE SHOW THAT YOU ARE A BIASED, LOWLY EDUCATED FRAUD. AND YOUR DISTORTIONS HAVE BECOME FALSIFIED HOPES FOR PEOPLE WHO ADMIRE AMD.

FYI. THIS IS *NOT* AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK (IF YOU DO UNDERSTAND THE TERM) THIS IS A CALLING FOR PROOF OF YOUR CLAIMS. HOW CAN YOU EXPECT ANYONE TO RESPECT YOUR ARTICLES IF YOU CAN'T EVEN PROVIDE TRUTH INTO YOUR OWN CREDIBILITY?

TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE, YOU CONSIDER ALL OF YOUR READERS OF LOW INTELLIGENCE!

DON'T YOU DARE MAKE AMD A LAUGHINGSTOCK OF THE WORLD BY STUPIDLY REPRESENTING THEIR CAUSE AND MAKING AMD LOOK MORE DESPERATE BY USING GROSS EXAGGERATIONS AND DISTORTIONS OF TERMINOLOGIES AND NEWS TIDBITS.

I RESPECTFULLY ASK EVERYONE WHO POST HERE TO KEEP SPAMMING HIM FOR PROOF & CREDENTIALS OF HIS CLAIMS. TO PENIX, THIS IS NOT ABOUT AMD AND I HOPE THAT YOU'LL RESPECT MY REQUEST.

THANK YOU.

4:19 PM, November 24, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikook is too dumb to understand that configuring the Intel with the same SSDs will also bring up the TPC-C scores, NOT maintain it! Only a moron would use a rebuttal that only makes him a bigger moron!

ROFL. Total idiot.

11:48 PM, November 24, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Damn, so many retards among Intel fanboys, theres no hope for this world

For retard that mentioned SSDs...Intel setup had SSDs too, just lesser amount

11:49 PM, November 24, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello all,

Sharikou sensationalizes weak statements and his arguments are self-destructive.

And I do agree that his blog does not reflect nor is indicative of the credentials and accomplishments this person claims.

Now I know why his readers enjoy ridiculing him.

- jf

12:05 AM, November 25, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Damn, so many retards among Intel fanboys, theres no hope for this world
For retard that mentioned SSDs...Intel setup had SSDs too, just lesser amount"

ROFL. Do you understand the premise of the argument? That means the TPC-C scores WILL rise. So the performance argument is on unstable ground.

It's evident that you are poor since you don't know HOW FAST a SINGLE SSD ADDS to a system: you can't afford one.

This anonymous poster IS Sharikou. Assuming every rebuttal is an Intel Fanboi. Pure Stupidity.

12:10 AM, November 25, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Damn, so many retards among Intel fanboys, theres no hope for this world
For retard that mentioned SSDs...Intel setup had SSDs too, just lesser amount"

What an idiot. Blabbing right away without even thinking. I agree, has totally no knowledge of how SSDs affect disk-IO intensive apps and artificial benches: A LOT. I agree that this posters weak drive-by responses is the same style as Sharikou's.

12:19 AM, November 25, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Sharikou, "Ph. D."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A REQUEST FROM ALL YOUR READERS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

YOU BOASTED AND FLAUNTED YOUR PH. D. AND THAT YOU HAVE CLAIMED TO HAVE WRITTEN SEVERAL ARTICLES FOR DIFFERENT REPUTABLE SITES.

WE RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR EVEN A SLIVER OF PROOF.

INSTEAD YOU REPLIED THAT *WE WERE TOO DUMB TO UNDERSTAND THEM,* AND REFUSED TO SHOW LINKS.

YET YOU CONTINUE TO BOAST THAT YOU DID ALL THESE.

WELL, WE CALL YOUR BLUFF SINCE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE FROM YOUR WRITING STYLE SHOW THAT YOU ARE A BIASED, LOWLY EDUCATED FRAUD. AND YOUR DISTORTIONS HAVE BECOME FALSIFIED HOPES FOR PEOPLE WHO ADMIRE AMD.

FYI. THIS IS *NOT* AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK (IF YOU DO UNDERSTAND THE TERM) THIS IS A CALLING FOR PROOF OF YOUR CLAIMS. HOW CAN YOU EXPECT ANYONE TO RESPECT YOUR ARTICLES IF YOU CAN'T EVEN PROVIDE TRUTH INTO YOUR OWN CREDIBILITY?

TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE, YOU CONSIDER ALL OF YOUR READERS OF LOW INTELLIGENCE!

DON'T YOU DARE MAKE AMD A LAUGHINGSTOCK OF THE WORLD BY STUPIDLY REPRESENTING THEIR CAUSE AND MAKING AMD LOOK MORE DESPERATE BY USING GROSS EXAGGERATIONS AND DISTORTIONS OF TERMINOLOGIES AND NEWS TIDBITS.

I RESPECTFULLY ASK EVRYONE WHO POST HERE TO KEEP SPAMMING HIM FOR PROOF & CREDENTIALS OF HIS CLAIMS. TO PENIX, THIS IS NOT ABOUT AMD AND I HOPE THAT YOU'LL RESPECT MY REQUEST.

THANK YOU.

12:21 AM, November 25, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou States:

"In other words, an equally populated Xeon system is 18% slower and 46% more expensive than the Opteron in transaction processing."

Sharikou lacks the common sense that changing the configuration will also alter the measurements of the scores. I find it hard to believe that this person has the rationality of a grade-schooler!

Indeed. Just by adding even a few more SSDs to the configuration will have a significant impact on the all the tests, not just the TPC-C. Server tests/apps spend a great amount of time doing disk IO.

This is not surprising, since it is an HP product-aligned publication. The fine print will show that the h/w configurations are to the advantage of HP's current flagship.

To the average reader, such as the author of this blog. They will miss that critical point. It is critical because the comparisons between systems are pointless, regardless of platforms.

I would be very interested to see what the scores are with equally configured systems.

Sharikou rebutted that if the Intel system were to be configured with the same amount of SSD, he claims that the price would rise to around $1.3M. I have little doubt at that configuration, the Intel part would outperform the historically-proven, lackluster-performing Interlagos, most probably not by a huge margin.

I'm sure he will say that $1.3M is a lot of money. But Sharikou himself mentions that price is no object in the enterprise sector when the tables were turned. This is tech journalism at its worst.

12:42 AM, November 25, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Proves that he is a fake Ph. D. ALL his rebuttals were shot down and PWNED completely.

Do you want RESPECT, Sharitard???

Then RESPECT your readers' request that you show proof that your credentials and publications ARE REAL.

If you can't then just leave. You won't be missed. There's always Cartoon Network.

12:46 AM, November 25, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharitard,

The AMD system is using SLC flash. The Intel system is using MLC flash. SLC flash is faster, but less dense (each flash cell can only hold one bit, with two possible read out levels). MLC flash is slower, but more dense (each flash cell can hold multiple bits, typically two, with four possible stored charges). For 400 GB, HP charges, before discounts, $5,999 for MLC, $12,499 for SLC. That's why it costs more: it has faster storage.

Add to the fact that the Intel has 11% lesser disks. Sharikou NEVER does its homework, just farts out trash with its writings!

1:09 AM, November 25, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou is proof that kids should be discouraged from blogging.

1:14 AM, November 25, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SLC is WAY faster (and expensive) than consumer-oriented MLC (that the Intel platform uses). With multi-T datasets, of course AMD will be ahead in TPC-C! My question is: why is the AMD lead so small?

Clearly, smug Sharikou IS the Lesser Educated writer.

1:32 AM, November 25, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Sharikou, "Ph. D."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A REQUEST FROM ALL YOUR READERS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

YOU BOASTED AND FLAUNTED YOUR PH. D. AND THAT YOU HAVE CLAIMED TO HAVE WRITTEN SEVERAL ARTICLES FOR DIFFERENT REPUTABLE SITES.

WE RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR EVEN A SLIVER OF PROOF.

INSTEAD YOU REPLIED THAT *WE WERE TOO DUMB TO UNDERSTAND THEM,* AND REFUSED TO SHOW LINKS.

YET YOU CONTINUE TO BOAST THAT YOU DID ALL THESE.

WELL, WE CALL YOUR BLUFF SINCE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE FROM YOUR WRITING STYLE SHOW THAT YOU ARE A BIASED, LOWLY EDUCATED FRAUD. AND YOUR DISTORTIONS HAVE BECOME FALSIFIED HOPES FOR PEOPLE WHO ADMIRE AMD.

FYI. THIS IS *NOT* AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK (IF YOU DO UNDERSTAND THE TERM) THIS IS A CALLING FOR PROOF OF YOUR CLAIMS. HOW CAN YOU EXPECT ANYONE TO RESPECT YOUR ARTICLES IF YOU CAN'T EVEN PROVIDE TRUTH INTO YOUR OWN CREDIBILITY?

TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE, YOU CONSIDER ALL OF YOUR READERS OF LOW INTELLIGENCE!

DON'T YOU DARE MAKE AMD A LAUGHINGSTOCK OF THE WORLD BY STUPIDLY REPRESENTING THEIR CAUSE AND MAKING AMD LOOK MORE DESPERATE BY USING GROSS EXAGGERATIONS AND DISTORTIONS OF TERMINOLOGIES AND NEWS TIDBITS.

I RESPECTFULLY ASK EVRYONE WHO POST HERE TO KEEP SPAMMING HIM FOR PROOF & CREDENTIALS OF HIS CLAIMS. TO PENIX, THIS IS NOT ABOUT AMD AND I HOPE THAT YOU'LL RESPECT MY REQUEST.

THANK YOU.

1:34 AM, November 25, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's going to be so funny when HP rolls out the Their SB-based Proliant. I wonder what this child will think of it when it blows everything away?

3:58 AM, November 25, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharitard,

The AMD system is using SLC flash. The Intel system is using MLC flash. SLC flash is faster, but less dense (each flash cell can only hold one bit, with two possible read out levels). MLC flash is slower, but more dense (each flash cell can hold multiple bits, typically two, with four possible stored charges). For 400 GB, HP charges, before discounts, $5,999 for MLC, $12,499 for SLC. That's why it costs more: it has faster storage.

Add to the fact that the Intel has 11% lesser disks. Do you even have an IOTA of an idea how disk IO intensive TPC-C is???

Sharikou NEVER does its homework, just farts out trash with its writings!

5:18 AM, November 25, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The funny thing that SharitarDumbIdiot did NOT even care to properly interpret the $/tpmC rating of the AMD system that is HIGHER (thus costlier per performance) than the Intel system ($0.87 vs. $0.65) in his retardation, he STUPIDLY just blurted out NUMBERS that are higher (like any kid would) and NOT the BOTTOM line!

Answer me this SHARITARD: since when did Price/Perf score of $0.87 become BETTER than $0.65?.

This is the REASON why $/tmpC is the BOTTOM LINE and NOT the RAW scores. Good god it's so simple I don't even know why I bother explain this. I guess it's a free service to educate you, Shari.

Can you grasp RATIOS? It's like saying Car "A" has better mileage because it went 100 miles using its 12-gallon tank as opposed to stupid car "I" that went only 97 miles using its 8-gallon tank!

= = = = =
Put it another way: if we were to normalize the Intel tpmC price/perf rating to be MATCHED with AMD's (as baseline) where:

n = {(0.87x1.024)/0.65}

You get a tpmC rating of 1.370m tpmC for Intel (vs, 1.208, making Intel, in actuality, 13% faster with the same SSD config at the same cost). Not bad for an "obsolete" part eh? In fact, even AMD's MC servers puts Interlagos to shame!
= = = = =

This is what the Ars article was saying ALL ALONG, yet you could not even figure it out. We all did (except for YOU). Moreover, ALL the other tests become inconclusive given an equalized set of configuration.

I bet your intelligence is so low you can't even grasp this. Not only are your own statements embarrassing, you just gave a clear indication of your level of comprehension! You failed to see HP's spin of things because of your stupidity. I mean it, you ARE stupid. And you love dumb trolling.

ABSOLUTE PROOF you don't have a Ph. D.

6:04 AM, November 25, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Notice how HP's Literature say "Scalability Leap" as opposed to "Performance Leap". Also, note how HP compares model numbers instead of emphasizing configuration specs between comparisons. If you look at Mr. Sharikous HP literature you will see a lot of context manoeuvrings.

This is a classic technique we use in marketing. Although my work is with marketing financial services, the method and logic is exactly the same. We "mask" the real descriptives to make the product more enticing. No, we are not exactly lying in the strict sense of the word: we simply assist our Client's interpretation of those numbers and facts. It's true, the more inquisitive and sharper types can see through all that but its NOT at all illegal.

Obviously Mr. Sharikou is an easy client to "assist". He is gullible enough to be spoon fed. I'm not saying he's a bad example of a customer, in fact he is ideal.

I hope you people understand why I have to remain anonymous! ;-P

6:36 AM, November 25, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bottom line is: AMD system performs better. No amount of you Inteltards spin will change that, ROFL

6:45 AM, November 25, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Awww Sharikou. That you again? You know you don't have to comment anonymously.

6:47 AM, November 25, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Bottom line is: AMD system performs better. No amount of you Inteltards spin will change that, ROFL"

Stop shifting goalposts, you retard. We're NOT talking about AMD in general here, we're specifically talking about Sharifucks take on BD Opteron.

Stop being such a lowly coward, retreating to silly semantics. I'm intelligent enough to know that AMD performs better in some markets (i.e. Low Cost Mobile). Idiot.

6:56 AM, November 25, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if you look at the Dell's PowerEdge 815 (Magny Cours), you can't help but feel totally disappointed with this HP Interlagos server. Not since Netburst did I see a new arch just epic shat on itself when compared to its previous generation. Whether Desktop or Server.

If it weren't for my Radeon, my 8150 (eBay) would have sucked when compared to my P2. I hope AMD gets its act together.

9:00 AM, November 25, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Sharikou, "Ph. D."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A REQUEST FROM ALL YOUR READERS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

YOU BOASTED AND FLAUNTED YOUR PH. D. AND THAT YOU HAVE CLAIMED TO HAVE WRITTEN SEVERAL ARTICLES FOR DIFFERENT REPUTABLE SITES.

WE RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR EVEN A SLIVER OF PROOF.

INSTEAD YOU REPLIED THAT *WE WERE TOO DUMB TO UNDERSTAND THEM,* AND REFUSED TO SHOW LINKS.

YET YOU CONTINUE TO BOAST THAT YOU DID ALL THESE.

WELL, WE CALL YOUR BLUFF SINCE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE FROM YOUR WRITING STYLE SHOW THAT YOU ARE A BIASED, LOWLY EDUCATED FRAUD. AND YOUR DISTORTIONS HAVE BECOME FALSIFIED HOPES FOR PEOPLE WHO ADMIRE AMD.

FYI. THIS IS *NOT* AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK (IF YOU DO UNDERSTAND THE TERM) THIS IS A CALLING FOR PROOF OF YOUR CLAIMS. HOW CAN YOU EXPECT ANYONE TO RESPECT YOUR ARTICLES IF YOU CAN'T EVEN PROVIDE TRUTH INTO YOUR OWN CREDIBILITY?

TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE, YOU CONSIDER ALL OF YOUR READERS OF LOW INTELLIGENCE!

DON'T YOU DARE MAKE AMD A LAUGHINGSTOCK OF THE WORLD BY STUPIDLY REPRESENTING THEIR CAUSE AND MAKING AMD LOOK MORE DESPERATE BY USING GROSS EXAGGERATIONS AND DISTORTIONS OF TERMINOLOGIES AND NEWS TIDBITS.

I RESPECTFULLY ASK EVRYONE WHO POST HERE TO KEEP SPAMMING HIM FOR PROOF & CREDENTIALS OF HIS CLAIMS. TO PENIX, THIS IS NOT ABOUT AMD AND I HOPE THAT YOU'LL RESPECT MY REQUEST.

THANK YOU.

9:01 AM, November 25, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why don't you guys leave the poor chap alone?
Don't you Americans understand that this site is actually SATIRE. Why are you taking it seriously?
The poor chap is just mocking AMD fan boys everywhere (if there are actually any left, given the current level of competitiveness of AMD hardware).
Of course the poor lad doesn't have a PhD. He'd have found something more creative, and productive to do with his life, if he did, rather than mocking the increasingly marginal number of AMD product enthusiasts that still exist.

10:10 AM, November 25, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seems Inteltards are the ones mocked here, lol

12:28 PM, November 25, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Awww Sharikou. That you again? You know you don't have to comment anonymously.

1:03 PM, November 25, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou Stupidly Said:

"If you put the same number of SSDs into the Xeon system, it would cost $1.3 million, resulting in a $1.27/tmpC price/performance."

Bzzzzzzt... wrong math! You need to do ration and proportions like the earlier post. PhD my ass!

n = {(0.87x1.024)/0.65}

You get a tpmC rating of 1.370m tpmC for Intel (vs, 1.208, making Intel, in actuality, 13% faster with the same SSD config at the same cost).

1:10 PM, November 25, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can you trust a blog from a "Ph.D." who does not even understand simple ratios?

Of course I'll be branded as an "Inteller" when the only Intel Product I have is in my Macbook. AMD all the way...

4:42 AM, November 26, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yup. That's Sharikous extremely narrow POV. If you correct or comment against him you're an "Inteller".

He then signs in anonymously and trolls garbage in hos own blog.

6:35 AM, November 26, 2011  
Blogger Sharikou PhD said...

You Intellers are so stupid you can't possibly understand my extensive arrays of credentials!

12:27 PM, November 26, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You Intellers are so stupid you can't possibly understand my extensive arrays of credentials!"

Who's an "Inteller", cvmface?

Prove to us that you have a Ph.D. from an accredited university.

Who was your professor?
What was your thesis?
When did you defend it?
Where are you published?

Let's see it. The world is waiting.

Pretty simple. You either have it or you don't.

You can't sustain your bullshit anymore. A "golden opprtunity" to set your, er, dubious reputation straight...and this is what you got?

Charade is over, fvckstick

LMFAO

11:52 AM, November 27, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's not even him - look at the ID - then look at the one above where he responds...the last one is a troll trolling the trolls trolling the troller...

Which would be amusing but the owner of this blog is a liar. I believe it's also a crime to claim credentials you do not possess in terms of a doctorate.

So not only is he a bad troll, he's a liar, and a criminal.

1:01 PM, November 27, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lol! You're right. A troll trolling a troll's blog.

1:57 PM, November 27, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think some of you guys have serious mental issues, lol

4:03 PM, November 27, 2011  
Blogger Evil_Merlin said...

We can't understand his credentials?

YOU HAVE NONE.

5:06 PM, November 27, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Sharikou, "Ph. D."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A REQUEST FROM ALL YOUR READERS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

YOU BOASTED AND FLAUNTED YOUR PH. D. AND THAT YOU HAVE CLAIMED TO HAVE WRITTEN SEVERAL ARTICLES FOR DIFFERENT REPUTABLE SITES.

WE RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR EVEN A SLIVER OF PROOF.

INSTEAD YOU REPLIED THAT *WE WERE TOO DUMB TO UNDERSTAND THEM,* AND REFUSED TO SHOW LINKS.

YET YOU CONTINUE TO BOAST THAT YOU DID ALL THESE.

WELL, WE CALL YOUR BLUFF SINCE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE FROM YOUR WRITING STYLE SHOW THAT YOU ARE A BIASED, LOWLY EDUCATED FRAUD. AND YOUR DISTORTIONS HAVE BECOME FALSIFIED HOPES FOR PEOPLE WHO ADMIRE AMD.

FYI. THIS IS *NOT* AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK (IF YOU DO UNDERSTAND THE TERM) THIS IS A CALLING FOR PROOF OF YOUR CLAIMS. HOW CAN YOU EXPECT ANYONE TO RESPECT YOUR ARTICLES IF YOU CAN'T EVEN PROVIDE TRUTH INTO YOUR OWN CREDIBILITY?

TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE, YOU CONSIDER ALL OF YOUR READERS OF LOW INTELLIGENCE!

DON'T YOU DARE MAKE AMD A LAUGHINGSTOCK OF THE WORLD BY STUPIDLY REPRESENTING THEIR CAUSE AND MAKING AMD LOOK MORE DESPERATE BY USING GROSS EXAGGERATIONS AND DISTORTIONS OF TERMINOLOGIES AND NEWS TIDBITS.

I RESPECTFULLY ASK EVRYONE WHO POST HERE TO KEEP SPAMMING HIM FOR PROOF & CREDENTIALS OF HIS CLAIMS. TO PENIX, THIS IS NOT ABOUT AMD AND I HOPE THAT YOU'LL RESPECT MY REQUEST.

THANK YOU.

8:15 PM, November 27, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its a blog...internet blog..WTF you need credentials from anyone anywhere...if you don't like what he says, GTFO, its just that simple...and find someone to repair that CAPS LOCK

5:37 AM, November 28, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dumbass. He's CLAIMING those credentials. GTFO

6:23 AM, November 28, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So? You're butthurt about that?

I'm glad you listened advice about CAPS LOCK, though

8:27 AM, November 28, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nope, Loser, That wasn't me. But this is:

To Sharikou, "Ph. D."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A REQUEST FROM ALL YOUR READERS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

YOU BOASTED AND FLAUNTED YOUR PH. D. AND THAT YOU HAVE CLAIMED TO HAVE WRITTEN SEVERAL ARTICLES FOR DIFFERENT REPUTABLE SITES.

WE RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR EVEN A SLIVER OF PROOF.

INSTEAD YOU REPLIED THAT *WE WERE TOO DUMB TO UNDERSTAND THEM,* AND REFUSED TO SHOW LINKS.

YET YOU CONTINUE TO BOAST THAT YOU DID ALL THESE.

WELL, WE CALL YOUR BLUFF SINCE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE FROM YOUR WRITING STYLE SHOW THAT YOU ARE A BIASED, LOWLY EDUCATED FRAUD. AND YOUR DISTORTIONS HAVE BECOME FALSIFIED HOPES FOR PEOPLE WHO ADMIRE AMD.

FYI. THIS IS *NOT* AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK (IF YOU DO UNDERSTAND THE TERM) THIS IS A CALLING FOR PROOF OF YOUR CLAIMS. HOW CAN YOU EXPECT ANYONE TO RESPECT YOUR ARTICLES IF YOU CAN'T EVEN PROVIDE TRUTH INTO YOUR OWN CREDIBILITY?

TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE, YOU CONSIDER ALL OF YOUR READERS OF LOW INTELLIGENCE!

DON'T YOU DARE MAKE AMD A LAUGHINGSTOCK OF THE WORLD BY STUPIDLY REPRESENTING THEIR CAUSE AND MAKING AMD LOOK MORE DESPERATE BY USING GROSS EXAGGERATIONS AND DISTORTIONS OF TERMINOLOGIES AND NEWS TIDBITS.

I RESPECTFULLY ASK EVRYONE WHO POST HERE TO KEEP SPAMMING HIM FOR PROOF & CREDENTIALS OF HIS CLAIMS. TO PENIX, THIS IS NOT ABOUT AMD AND I HOPE THAT YOU'LL RESPECT MY REQUEST.

THANK YOU.

9:02 AM, November 28, 2011  
Blogger Sharikou PhD said...

"Its a blog...internet blog..WTF you need credentials from anyone anywhere...if you don't like what he says, GTFO, its just that simple...and find someone to repair that CAPS LOCK"

Thank you, my friend. You can see how distorted their reality is. I am not surprised that your admiration for me is strong.

9:07 AM, November 28, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^^ Troll.

The "real" Sharikou is above us all.

Actually - he's beneath us all...on the floor...in a big steamy pile...

because he's nothing more than a lying piece of shit...

6:26 PM, November 28, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

God I love this blog--it's like listening to Kim Jong-il talk about how great North Korea is.

10:24 AM, November 29, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WRONG! Sharikou is not a liar. He REALLY believes in his obviously dumb and illogical distortions! The only other weirdos are those people who defend and admire him. But then again, they just might also be Sharikou itself.

10:42 AM, November 29, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh noes...

AMD shifts competitive focus away from PC, to mobile

To convince me how awesome the Bulldozer architecture is and how it pwnz, fragz, shits on, teabags and then subsequently eats Intel's three year old Nehalem chips (heh), you will need to explain to me why AMD is releasing press information about how they're "letting go of the AMD vs Intel mindset."

Now, if we instead consider that AMD's chip architecture has now become so bad that even AMD is willfully conceding the fight, well, then this release begins making more sense.

Which is it, Sharikou / Penix? I'm sure you have a solid, reliable answer as to why AMD is now shifting their focus (and doing it in a publicly stated manner) away from competing with Intel...

I'm quite eager to hear the hilari-, err, interesting angle you'll invent to explain this situation :-)

2:52 PM, November 29, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou must be shitting in his pants coz of how low his stocks have become.

It's really Hector Ruiz' fault, he squandered AMD's fortune and resources while hey were still ahead with the Athlon.

11:12 PM, November 29, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Flippin Waffles

Are you posting here, shittard?

Crying yourself to sleep with your posts on HardOCP over AMD's BD continued marketing damage control?

Yes, BD is shit. Live with it. End of story.

LMAO

11:46 PM, November 29, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The truth is. AMD itself is admitting that BD is not performing well against even the last gen AMD and Intel servers on many publications, Semiaccurate and HardOCP is just sone of them.

I still wish AMD well.

Sharikou, OTOH, fuck you. He lives on AMD PR releases and if I were to invent an article that says BD can make one immortal, Sharidumb will consider it pure fact and throw in 21 virgins in the mix!

Dumbass Ph.D. can't even do proper elementary math. Thinks performance ratios are insignificant values. He's funny though. GOOD BREAKFAST ENTERTAINMENT.

11:56 PM, November 29, 2011  
Blogger Sharikou PhD said...

Bulldozer is being hampered by Intel-specific compilers in all of the benchmarks. You are in a reality dictated by Intel lies. These Intel compilers slow AMD processors by as much as 99%.

If AMD uses a honest compiler, BD will frag all that is Intel by more that 800%. That is why Cray chose AMD because it uses its own compilers that PWNS Intel and totally destroys SB.

You Intellers don't know how to read benchmarks, let alone read.

1:28 AM, November 30, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BD is a mess and no amount of Sharikou-altered-reality will fix that. The problem started a long time ago with Hector Ruiz and his overinflated purchases (and Golden Parachute) which many stupid AMDers refuse to admit.

The ATI purchase may look like a good move but actually it wasn't. Even without AMD, ATI would still have come up with excellent products.

The only thing that happened is that the engineers became so fragmented after that fucking purchase (and purchases) that many of us at research got axed!!! (FUCK YOU AMD, SERVES YOU FUCKING RIGHT).

Ruiz ruined AMD like he did Motorola. The Athlon's success was NOT because of him and his imaginary friends at Marketing.

It was exactly this rose-colored filtered vision of AMD's reality (very much like Sharikou's) that destroyed it: denying that the problem exists and not acting up on it until it's too late.

For real: AMD BK2012

And Sharikou, go fuck your stupid, dissolutional self!

4:49 AM, November 30, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, it's starting to fall like dominoes. AMD will sell out its remaining server chips and call it a day in anticipation of the more powerful SB Xeons and Opteron's fuck up with real-world benches.

4:52 AM, November 30, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Awww and all that's left is Sharifuck's Intel rants and conspiracy theories.

Funny how he claimed Intel BK for many years now. Ironic for him, but everybody else knew the truth otherwise.

I guess his fake Ph. D. didn't help after all...

4:54 AM, November 30, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just read Sharikou's blog and his logic is entirely wrong. He discounts the price/performance ratio and did not take into account that by using •more• and •faster• SSDs, not only will the Intel systems be significantly faster but only slightly more expensive.

Clearly, this blogger does not do his research or dig deeper into the publications he himself refers to. He just do the easy and wrong way of doing things.

I agree that his claims of a Ph. D. is definitely fake. Considering the level of intelligence he demonstrates. Asking for proof is not only pointless, it is logically impossible. especially for an obvious troll.

7:17 AM, November 30, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/29/hardocp_readers_ask_amd_bulldozer_questions

Awesome interview with AMD employess, leaving no doubt about BD's excellence.

7:40 AM, November 30, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^^ Lol. Another troll. PLEASE READ THE WHOLE DISCUSSION. It sounded more like a apology than an explanation. Excellence? What an obvious troll! DAMN Sharikou, whenever you post as anonymous, we know it's you. If BD was excellent in the first place, AMD should not be in trouble...

Poor Logic = Sharikou, who else?

Let's hope Trinity delivers...

9:46 AM, November 30, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

we are out of the game....
regards, Rory P. Read
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/AMD-APU-Z-Series-ARM-Tegra-3,14114.html

9:47 AM, November 30, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL! And what would AMD employees say? BD is a meh product? You stupid fuck, of course they will say it's excellent!

Further proof that Sharikou's anonymous comments are as stupid as he is!

9:48 AM, November 30, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poor Sharikou. His days are numbered. Stupid Idiot that he is. Hey, Sharistupid, how's your AMD stocks?

If it weren't for your fucked up conclusions, I would have had some real respect for AMDers.

9:52 AM, November 30, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BD is fantastic chip. Intel is only good for present, AMD, with its multiple threads for lower price than 2600K, will dominate in the future.

AMD guys are so money and they know it. They push the multithreaded performance envelope further on, and encourage developers to develop apps in more multi-threaded manner.

9:58 AM, November 30, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^^ sure Sharikou, masking your troll won't fool us. Dominate the future? What Future? LOL PWNED!

10:01 AM, November 30, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They also encourage Microsoft to improve thread scheduling in their new Windows 8, so that we, as end customers, can get more polished product in the end.

10:01 AM, November 30, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"BD is fantastic chip. Intel is only good for present, AMD, with its multiple threads for lower price than 2600K, will dominate in the future."

Too bad BD gets pwnd buy the less expensive i5-2500....or do you like to conveintly ignore truth?

And oh my, Ivy Bridge is just around the corner, die shrink, more efficiency than bulldozer could ever hope to achieve, new transistor technology...

Tick Tock Tick Tock...by the time Bulldozer performs as well as a midrange Sandybridge, Intel will be two generations ahead...

10:16 AM, November 30, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pwnd? By 2500K? Are you kidding me?

Go to anandtech and see benches for yourself. Bulldozer wins in half of them. Is that what you call "getting pwnd"?

10:33 AM, November 30, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trouble is, Bulldozer is at the same price point as the 2600k, which is comparable in multi-threaded tasks, and dominates in single-threaded tasks, though almost as important (in some cases more important), has *way* lower power consumption. When measuring performance per watt or dollar, Bulldozer is at best even and at worst terrible. In Anand's x264 second pass (highly threaded), where the FX-8150 finished in essentially the same amount of time as the 2600k, it used 47% more power. That differential will get worse with the release of Ivy Bridge.

I've used plenty of AMD and Intel chips in the past--I have no allegiance to either, but the hyperbole tacked onto Bulldozer performance here is absurd.

1:33 PM, November 30, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Pwnd? By 2500K? Are you kidding me?

Go to anandtech and see benches for yourself. Bulldozer wins in half of them. Is that what you call "getting pwnd"?"

Funny huh? The 2500K is cheaper and OC'ed PWNS all of BD! Half? Can you say that 35% is HALF??? Also, the 2600K simply decimates it. Massage your interpretation any way you want. It won't affect the truth.

Have you seen how Sharikou uses the word PWN? A less than 1% lead is PWN to him. Idiot.

2:04 PM, November 30, 2011  
OpenID PENIX said...

Like Sharikou, I am completely unbiased in my viewpoint. I have no allegiance to AMD or Intel. I simply assess the facts, and base my conclusions solely on them.

This is undeniably another slam dunk for AMD. There is, and likely never will be, a single reason to buy Intel products. AMD has proven, time and time again, that they cannot be matched in price or performance.

3:59 PM, November 30, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm going on the assumption that most pro-AMD comments on here are intended to be ironic.

Either that or this site is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fox News.

4:48 PM, November 30, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"PENIX said...
Like Sharikou, I am completely unbiased in my viewpoint. I have no allegiance to AMD or Intel. I simply assess the facts, and base my conclusions solely on them."

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..............

But, of course, PENIX = sharikou

BHWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasshat

9:29 PM, November 30, 2011  
OpenID PENIX said...

Anonymous fool said...
"But, of course, PENIX = sharikou"

You are mistaken. While I consider this a compliment, I am not Sharikou.

9:57 PM, November 30, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see Penix you have a multiple personality disorder issue. Thats ok go to your mothers kitchen and freeload some food I am sure Sharifook will wake up in your head!
Moron

10:06 PM, November 30, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Penix, you idiot, now they know we are one person! That wasn't the plan, you should have shut your mouth. How many times have I told you that you can control those trolling urges with the proper meds...

Baron, stay out of this. I'm talking to Penix... Oh god Baron, stop it, we'll talk about this later with the rest of the guys when we see the doctor today...

1:00 AM, December 01, 2011  
Blogger Sharikou PhD said...

Like I said before. Penix realizes my professionalism, expertise and attention to detail. Our accuracy is never in question and you people should accept our authority on the subject.

2:01 AM, December 01, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yep. Apparently analyzing charts is difficult for Intel fanboys, hence I'm glad this blog exists. Everyone thinks Intel trounces AMD, it doesn't.

3:36 AM, December 01, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fuck me! I can't believe sharicunt is still around. What a fucken tool this guy eah!

5:39 AM, December 05, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sharikou, you need a medical treatment!
it's simple:
"http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/11/bulldozer-server-benchmarks-are-here-and-theyre-a-catastrophe.ars/2"
the amd-"dust-pan" (others call it bulldozer) is a LUDICROUS architecture - ~2M elements/~300mm2 die/performance like 2 generations-old intel cpu :)))

5:41 AM, December 05, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

btw, the issue with BD elements count spec. is complete joke!
finally 2B or 1.2B? I just can't find any data in "www.amd.com". curious isn't it?

6:24 AM, December 05, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's because Bulldozer is a substandard processor. Actually, sub-standard is putting it mildly. And AMD knows it.

10:09 AM, December 05, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou generally employs proper grammar--he's not an idiot. He is absurdly pompous (case in point: "you people should accept our authority", a phrase which would not come out of anybody with a doctorate from an accredited institution).

He's either 1) delusional, 2) paid by AMD to shill their mediocre engineering (which is unlikely to continue given AMD's financial situtation), or 3) delusional and desperate/greedy, believing his propaganda will hike AMD's stock price.

Then again, it could be a combination of the above.

Either way, I love him--the entertainment value is priceless.

10:19 PM, December 05, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well his math and logic also betrays his fake claims of a Ph.D. And I agree that he is desperate to hike his AMD's stock prices.

1:52 AM, December 06, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou is clearly a child in his logic and rational. He even thinks that AMD will hit those almost 40-per-share levels of 2006 (when Hector started bullshitting their finance and engineers)... Now it's a sorry 5-something. The most obvious evidence of his FUD stupidity is his "Intel BK" and that he unfortunately does not own AMD stock (which most likely he has).

Penix, on the other hand, is an obvious troll and he flaunts it as if it earns him guts points but in reality he is (1) pathetically received by the public and (2) is most likely Sharikou himself.

5:46 AM, December 06, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the very sad side here is, that all of this stuff is come after almost 5 years of outright roguishness! after a megatons of green diagrams, "closed-doors" presentations, nda-bullshits and so ...

6:50 AM, December 06, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Sharikou PhD said...
Bulldozer is being hampered by Intel-specific compilers in all of the benchmarks. You are in a reality dictated by Intel lies. These Intel compilers slow AMD processors by as much as 99%. "
>>>
Sharikou, PhD huh ...
"http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_bulldozer_aliasing&num=1", which PROVES THE OPPOSITE ! be more educated in IT :)))

7:31 AM, December 06, 2011  
Blogger Evil_Merlin said...

Our accuracy is never in question and you people should accept our authority on the subject.

This has to be one of the funniest things I've read in a good long while.

Mind you this is the verbage of a fucker who lies about having a PhD.

Never in question?


What a sack of shit. Take Penix with you and kill youselves. Save youself the embarassment when AMD goes tits up.

11:57 AM, December 06, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>Evil_Merlin,
indeed, the "PhD-man" is got a loose screw ...

As I was said, he needs a medical treatment ..., but I wonder - "sharko shower" or something harder :)))
But I am not MD, so ... :)))

5:50 AM, December 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Greetings,

I just read this post and I am surprised how narrow-minded the interpretation of the numbers were. In fact, the price/performance justification is very wrong in both logic and mathematical conclusions (price/performance ratio is trivialised).

Which led me to believe that this person is either a liar, delusional, or just plain stupid. I personally think the latter.

Perhaps it's some form of desperate act to raise AMD's stock. Which is laughable since other reputable tech sites refer to this site as a joke and useless in it's relevance (that is how I found this blog in the first place).

Funny read though.

9:37 AM, December 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please don't claim having the title of Ph. D. if you are unwilling to prove it!

We all know you are using the fake title to show some "credibility" on whatever you post. Idiot.

11:52 AM, December 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I started losing respect for AMD ever since I read this blog.

11:55 AM, December 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OMG, this guy does not even know how to interpret the benchmark numbers.

9:01 AM, December 09, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Indeed. He has a very flawed rationale: first is that he disregards the importance of the price/performance ratio (which is the final score we at server acquisitions make the decision with). And he ignores the fact that by replacing the SSDs with the multilayer-types (high-speed, more expensive) dramatically improves multitransaction benches.

It's even more incredible that there is a poster named Penix that actually agrees with the post!

11:36 AM, December 11, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're new here. Penix is a stupid troll, just ignore it next time you post!

11:41 AM, December 11, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL Shari prepared to be owned by the new E5-2690 Sandy Bridge Xeons, which are 80% higher performing than the Xeon X5690!

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/12079/

12:59 AM, December 28, 2011  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home