Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Register Finds Fault In Turion Benchmark Setup

Posted by timothy on from the never-promised-not-to-blow-my-nose-on-you dept.

An anonymous reader submits "From The Register, it appears that AMD has joined Intel, ATI, nVidia, and just about every other hardware manufacturer on the planet in benchmark fiddling. The benchmarks for the Turion appear to have been compared using quite different systems - a 35 watt Turion 64 with an ATI GPU versus a 25 watt Pentium M with an Intel integrated graphics processor. Sadly, it appears the original benchmarks were too good to be true."

10 of 266 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Strage Focus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't Battery Life the main reason one would pay a premimum for a Pentium-M? If you want a fast laptop with a shite battery, there's plenty out there.

  2. There's a reason AMD is scared by Txiasaeia · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Now, don't get me wrong - all my desktops are AMD, from the K3 (?) to my A64. But there's just no touching a P-M system by anybody. The register article mentions that battery life could be 1/3 of a P-M - well, my IBM X31 1.6GHz system gets about five hours of battery life on min performance, so that means that a Turion could hypothetically have 1.6 hours worth of battery life? Some Pentium 4-M's have bettery battery life than that! If these numbers are right, then AMD definitely needs to be worried.

    But hell, in the desktop market they're kings, and everybody knows that. It's too bad they had to resort to benchmark fixing for a mobile processor.

    --
    Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
  3. Realisticaly by ccbutler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not like you can trust the PC hardware web sites any more than you can trust the vendors anyways. There's a high road? Where?? =P

  4. Why wouldn't they? by FireballX301 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    According to the article, their laptop processor beat out the intel processor only by a 'small margin'. They have to release benchmark press releases, so, being a business interested in profit, they stack things.

    They make some of the best chips on the market. Doesn't keep them from being 'just another business'.

    1. Re:Why wouldn't they? by pojo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because there is value in being trustworthy.

      (Obviously not enough, though.)

  5. Total power use comparison? by geneing · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A fair comparison of power use would include total power used by cpu+chipset+video+memory. I remember reading somewhere that AMD cpu doesn't need northbridge, so that may give it an edge in total power use.

  6. I really don't see the problem here. by Buzzard2501 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    But, while the 2.0GHz clock on both companies' chips would seem to indicate an apples to apples comparison
    When has clock rate *ever* been a good way to compare different CPUs lines?
    The AMD system ran on a 35 watt Turion 64 and had a graphics processor from ATI. That's a pretty handy pairing when you decide to compare it against a 27 watt Pentium-M with Intel's integrated graphics processor.
    That makes it sound like the A64 system is running a 9700, its just an intergrated graphics from aATI Xpress 200 chipset.
    --
    Real programmers don't comment their code. It was hard to write, it should be hard to understand.
  7. Review fiddling by strattheman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the biggest problems the Register had with the AMD test setup versus the Intel test setup is that the AMD setup "had a graphics processor from ATI" while the Intel setup had "Intel's integrated graphics processor". It doesn't mention that the ATI video, the Mobility Radeon Xpress 200 series, is also an integrated solution.
    From the article, "An AMD spokeswoman insisted the company picked 'the most comparable offering from the competitor' that it could find, even though it didn't actually do that."

    Well, AMD doesn't make any integrated graphics solutions, and the Radeon Xpress 200 series is one of the only integrated graphics options available. Benchmarks of the Radeon Xpress 200 can be found in this(http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc. aspx?i=2269&p=18) Anandtech review of the chipset the the Xpress 200 integrated graphics debuted on. As expected of integrated graphics, it performs much worse than the lowest tier graphics cards ATI is currently making, the Radeon X300.

    AMD rigging benchmarks? Maybe. But the proposition that AMD did not choose the closest video to Intel's offering -- that it had availale -- is false.
    The more sensational the report, the more hits the Register will recieve. It is ironic that while chastising AMD for fiddling benchmarks to sell more units, it fiddles with rhetoric to increase popularity.

    (I type this at a Pentium M laptop, this is not AMD fanboyism)

  8. Not fiddling when compare any two chips by spworley · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The argument is that the wattage of the two compared CPUs was not identical, and therefore the results should not be compared.

    Does this mean that it's "fiddling" to compare a high wattage Prescott core Pentium 4 with a lower
    wattage Athlon 64?

    Would it be "fiddling" if you matched laptop wattage overall? (The P-M needs more support chips after all). Would it be "fiddling" if you matched chips based on equal price? Would it be "fiddling" if you matched laptops based on equal weight?

    No. The comparison of the chips is fair.. AMD wasn't being deceptive about which chips they were comparing. The price, weight, frequency, cache size, wattage, and instruction set support of both chips are not secret.

    The Register is just making noise to get notice and readers.

  9. Will someone PLEASE edit the parent?!! by Jdodge99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. AMD used a standard mobile chipset for it's notebook -- and ATI chipset, with integrated graphics. Then they used an intel chipset with integrated graphics. 2. It compared a 2ghz part to a 2ghz part -- it's a reasonable thing to do as an AMD sponsored benchmark. Still no fiddling. 3. The register author does a lot more speculating and throws a few w.a.g'es out there regarding battery life. They're trying to get mfrs interested in their new product. 4. We won't really know about battery life until we see fraternal twin laptops. IE: all other things being equal -- processor / chipset different. To be honest, I have no idea how it will turn out -- it'll be interesting to see. In short -- the author (dishonestly) takes a matter of opinion and presents it as a matter of principle. AMD vs Intel aside -- find some integrity buddy.