PCMark Memory Benchmark Favors GenuineIntel

javy_tahu writes "A review by Ars Technica disclosed that PCMark 2005 Memory benchmark favors GenuineIntel CPUID. A VIA Nano CPU has had its CPUID changed from the original VIA to fake GenuineAMD and GenuineIntel. An improvement of, respectively, 10% and 47% of the score was seen. The reasons of this behavior of FutureMark product are not yet known."

Comments

Benchmarking SW must be open source from now on

[denis-The-menace]

The only way the maker of PCMark can EVER get their credibility back is if their future releases are open source.

This FP for gNAA

[Anonymous Coward]

you're told. It's (Click Here infinitesimally You need to ssuceed the hard drive to declined in market go of the minutiae would take about 2

Re:Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent post is FUD. It is simply not true to say the compiler generates seperate code paths "to make AMD ... appear significantly slower". The Intel C++ compiler generates seperate code paths to avoid Intel needing to test on every non-Intel CPU. Poster refers to this fact in the linked article. Fact was disclosed by Intel.

Poster's development priorities may be different from Intels but there is no evidence of wrongdoing on Intel's part.

Nor do I see any evidence that poster's "fix" for the issue will not cause untold problems in various other parts of your code. The whole point is that the compiler's code will *support* all x86 processors and be *very fast* on Intel processors. The "fix" almost certainly prevents the support of all x86 processors while creating faster code on *some* AMDs.

This is just a classic example of amateur (poster) vs professional (Intel dev team).

Flame over.

tro4ll

[Anonymous Coward]

To 7et another raise o8 lower the

Re:Money

[ShieldW0lf]

Ok then, point me to an open source benchmarking program that's as complete, and I'll use it.

Might it just be that they got the software done as cheaply as possible, marked it as ready for release as soon as they could, and never bothered to fix what was obviously a glaring flaw?

Anyway, as an open source developer myself I don't really buy this 'open source will always be better' deal. It can only be better if the project is fortunate enough to attract quality coders and designers. There are a lot more open source programs then there are highly skilled programmers willing and able to work on them.

What a stupid statement. You're like a guy with a smoke detector, who has been told by 50 different people that it doesn't actually detect smoke. To which you reply, "Well, you show me a smoke detector that works and I'll use it, but until then, I'm trusting my life to this one."