Buck passing. IT support people have heard of it
|
|
|
AMD leaves Bapco claiming Sysmark 2012 does not show Llano performance
CHIP DESIGNER AMD has left the benchmarking consortium Bapco, claiming that its Sysmark 2012 suite does not represent real world usage.
Nigel Dessau, CMO at AMD announced that AMD has pulled out of Bapco and will not be supporting Sysmark 2012, claiming, "BAPCo chose to ignore the opportunity to promote openness and transparency." Dessau said that the score delivered by Sysmark 2012 is generated by seven applications, incorporating tasks such as optical character recognition, which "an average user will rarely if ever do".
Dessau's announcement follows similar decisions by Nvidia and VIA to part ways with Bapco, leaving the benchmarking outfit with reduced credibility. Jan Guetter, head of communications at AMD told The INQUIRER, "Sysmark 2012 was the tipping point," and that AMD's decision to leave Bapco "was not an easy one and was the final step".
Guetter admitted that the decision to leave Bapco was fuelled by AMD's A-Series Llano accelerated processing unit (APU). Guetter said, "Sysmark [2012] ignores APU acceleration," and reiterated Dessau's views by saying, "Sysmark 2012 does not reflect real user scenarios at all," adding, "Sysmark [2012] is not representative of real world performance."
If you thought that was hard, then Guetter continued the demolition job on Bapco by saying that firms "would be ill-advised to use Sysmark 2012" for buying decisions, as "it is not functioning". Ouch.
Guetter suggested that users look at multiple benchmarks to get an accurate representation of hardware performance, something that any hardware review website would recommend. Guetter also told us, "AMD is planning on creating an open benchmarking consortium," and said that he would "not be surprised if others leave Bapco".
Many companies still use a single benchmark such as Sysmark to evaluate individual components that end up in systems. Asked whether AMD's decision to pull out of Bapco will lead to fewer design wins, Guetter told The INQUIRER that he doesn't see this as a problem.
Guetter's view that leaving Bapco won't affect AMD's chances of winning deals is perhaps accurate, after all if the benchmark doesn't show APUs in a particularly good light, then being part of Bapco is hardly worth the effort.
For AMD, it's decision to bung a fully featured DirectX 11 GPU into the same die as a quad-core processor means that current benchmarks that aim to look at overall system performance need to take into account desktop applications that make use of GPUs, such as Microsoft's Internet Explorer 9 and Adobe's Photoshop. Although Sysmark 2012 might not accurately reflect an APU's performance, Guetter wasn't rubbishing other synthetic benchmarks such as Futuremark's 3DMark, reiterating his earlier point that users need to run multiple benchmarks.
Bapco having lost AMD, Nvidia and VIA all in a matter of days casts significant doubt on whether Bapco and Sysmark will have much future, unless Bapco mends its ways. µ
Tags: Amd
Share this:
Share
@BILL F.
I guess it's more important to show YOUR ignorance on the subject of SysMark's history of optimizing its benchmaking software for Intel specific extensions and leaving AMD specific extensions out of their product.
So I would say yours is the "piehole" that needs to be gagged simply due to your ignorance.
Fred Dunn
Reason: Plagiarism
I think we, as consumers, are ripe for a change in how PCs (and other devices) are marketed to us. I think a new benchmark system used for marketing purposes is needed, and it needn't be complicated. A 5 category system, each showing a score out of 5 stars (half stars possible) would be perfect. Each category could have sub-categories (that are normally hidden) if desired so that if you're interested in a gaming system, you could then see if a system is better at FPS, say, or strategy. If looking for something to create stuff, you could see if a system is better at creating web-sites, or films. The benchmark could be updated every year and every PC made prior would lose half or 1 star per year it is older than current. If the benchmark was open, with details about how exactly each star is awarded, job done for all!
It ain't rocket science!
You should have GAVE credit to those who posted the news before you choose to re post it. This has really left a bad taste in my mouth and will consider going elsewhere for my news now seeing that the INQ does not care to be openly fair and just about how it reports News.
The Intel C++ compiler did also a CPU check and optimised P4 but did exactly the opposite for AMD CPU's.
It was a 1 bit patch to "fix" that cheat on Intel part. If Intel wants to sell software, they should not cheat on compatitors!! But they did.
There are too many cases known where closed source is doing nasty stuff.
That way everybody can verify what it's doing.
Never trust closed source, if it's closed it means companies have to hide stuff.
Just look at M$, they have been doing nasty stuff for years.
Like undocumented hooks to favour their own software.
nVidia has done it by cheating on 3DMark!
Sysmark did it by favouring the P3/P4 over AMD K7/8 by changing benchmarks.
As such, these companies must come together and work out their own agreed opensource benchmark.
That way everybody can see how and what is tested, also people can help to better the benchmark.
SYSmark 2012 is an application-based benchmark. It is already more graphic weighted than makes sense for most users. Llano is a high performance video chip with a set of 10 year old processor cores thrown in for free. Sandy Bridge is a set of high performance processor cores with a 10 year old video chip thrown in for free. A computer still relies on processor cores quite a bit. That is why we have multicore after all.
For anyone performance means when the thing runs fast, like encoding a movie, playing a game, or time that takes the thing to decompress a rar file. That's real world.
And I think both intel and AMD do great on everything Real World related, sometimes Intel is better, sometimes is worse, but AMD has bad reputation of loosing on benchmarks of any class sometimes this underates a great CPU.
Why none of those benchs shows a price/performance ratio? Because AMD would always win on that one.
And Sysmark developers always tried to search every bit of code that for one reason or other, runs better on the intel CPU. They did enourmous efforts trying to find them. And they did find them. That's why their bench show intel as faster CPU.
why didn't they use the APUs power? Is intel soooo far away in the GPU section of their CPUs? I think we all know the answer...
And AMD is ahead, so far ahead with their fusion ideal, that unfortunatelly there's still too little code you can try. Except games of course where the performance increase is noticable immediatly.
But then I fall in the following contradiction, "if the high performance that APUs provide isn't noticeable NOW for real world applications NOW, then why meassure it?"
Then I don't know what to think. But the only thing I know for sure is that I want a LLANO processor on my destop so I can save some bucks in a GPU and the fact I'm owning an APU. Software reasearch that makes use of it will be as exciting as if I were kid with a new mecano set.
But on the other side, the thing runs cools and runs fast. Laptos based on it will blast anything. And the feeling of running windows on AMD is better in my opinion. You don't know how does an AMD PC feels until you own one. And that's my final thought
Intel has been buying skewed benches for years. I support AMD and refuse to buy any Intel product based on their multiple convictions for violation of anti-trust laws, tax evasions and other unscrupulous behavior.
It was about time. SYSmark is hopelessly skewed in Intel's favor, it's been like this for almost ten years:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1004505/amd-accuses-bapco-of-pro-intel-performance-bias
As a benchmark it's totally useless. It's a Intel funded marketing program. Heck, BAPCo's HQ address is the same as Intel's...
I guess its more important to shoot your piehole off rather than making products that can compete with its competitors and make its investors MONEY????