Is BAPCo damaged goods?

IT HAS BEEN over three weeks since AMD's explosive allegations against the benchmark firm BAPCo hit the fan.

AMD alleges that BAPCo has manipulated its widely-used SYSmark 2002 benchmark suite to supposedly benefit the Intel P4 processor. This publication reported last week on the case against BAPCo. Why has BAPCo not responded to or totally repudiated these claims? A simple yea or nay on the validity of the allegation would have sufficed until their corroborating evidence had been published. But to date no comment has been made by the non-profit consortium, which claims its benchmarks are real world and objective. BAPCo's continued silence on this issue only adds more credence to AMD's position.

Intel, which chairs the BAPCo desktop performance committee and provides some engineers to develop the SYSmark products, has already made its position clear on this issue. Intel said other benchmarks besides SYSmark have confirmed the Pentium 4's performance. "The vast majority have said that the Pentium 4 2.8 GHz is the highest-performing processor," said an Intel representative. Thanks but this still misses the point.

AMD's evidence shows that the Pentium 4 gained disproportionately against the AMD Athlon processor when compared to last year's SYSmark (20% in Internet Content Creation, 10% in Office Productivity). What consumers, business users, and hardware websites want to know is this: Is SYSmark 2002 a fraud, or is AMD's evidence wrong?

Please answer the question. We have been patiently waiting and have a right to know. We are the people who buy PC products. You have a fiduciary responsibility to us. We don't want a situation where consumers and business users are misled into buying a misrepresented product. It is time for BAPCo to open its mouth and respond.

The following are current BAPCo members: AMD, ARC Intuition, CNet, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, InfoWorld, Intel, Microsoft, and VNU Business Publications Limited (UK). With AMD claiming that SYSmark 2002 has been manipulated, and with Intel just saying that the benchmarks show their processor to be the fastest in the world, there is no middle ground. It's strange that CNet took eight days to comment on this issue. Their neutral stance suggests they're just sitting on the fence.

After a benchmark is developed, each BAPCo member receives one vote. But Intel chairs the committee that is responsible for the makeup of SYSmark, as well as providing engineers to help develop the SYSmark products. So can we trust them? Or is it like leaving Count Dracula in charge of the blood bank?

Public concern has been raised in other quarters regarding claims made about processor performance. One such example is "Neubauer et al v. Intel et al," a class action lawsuit that has been filed against Intel, Gateway, and Hewlett-Packard. The plaintiffs allege that these vendors misrepresented the performance of Intel's P4. Another is the BAPCo issue, which we're discussing here. Both of these issues could get linked if the lawsuit ends up in court.

With Intel and AMD at loggerheads on this issue, why can't the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the consumer watchdog, be invited to adjudicate this issue. If BAPCo members are not in agreement on the makeup of a benchmark, it should be left to the FTC to adjudicate.

This arrangement would have two very beneficial outcomes. One, it would add a public and accountable dimension to the BAPCo organization, and two, it would bring back some much needed credibility.

Below is an extract from the FTC's Vision, Mission and Goals statement.

The Commission works to enhance the smooth operation of the marketplace by eliminating acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive. In general, the Commission's efforts are directed toward stopping actions that threaten consumers' opportunities to exercise informed choice.

Can consumers make informed choices in the current market environment, we ask.

AMD and Intel have made their positions clear. But, is there anyone else in the BAPCo consortium that will step up to the rostrum and speak? We have experienced Enron and WorldCom, two of the biggest company meltdowns in US corporate history. The business world we now live in requires a higher level of duty and accountability.

Many believe that the decision that BAPCo takes on this issue will ultimately determine its credibility.

I hope that the plaintiffs who have filed against Intel et al will see this lawsuit through to the end. If they do, it will open a very unsavory can of worms. If they win, it will ultimately change the PC benchmark industry for the better. Let's hope this happens for the benefit of the consumer. Big business may have forgotten that the consumer is king. Let's make sure we do all we can to protect their interests. µ