Nvidia Calls Out Intel For Cheating In Xeon Phi vs GPU Benchmarks (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Nvidia has called out Intel for juicing its chip performance in specific benchmarks -- accusing Intel of publishing some incorrect "facts" about the performance of its long-overdue Knights Landing Xeon Phi cards. Nvidia's primary beef is with the following Intel slide, which was presented at a high performance computing conference (ISC 2016). Nvidia disputes Intel's claims that Xeon Phi provides "2.3x faster training" for neural networks and that it has "38 percent better scaling" across nodes. It looks like Intel opted for the classic using-an-old-version-of-some-benchmarking-software manoeuvre. Intel claimed that a Xeon Phi system is 2.3 times faster at training a neural network than a comparable Maxwell GPU system; Nvidia says that if Intel used an up-to-date version of the benchmark (Caffe AlexNet), the Maxwell system is actually 30 percent faster. And of course, Maxwell is Nvidia's last-gen part; the company says a comparable Pascal-based system would be 90 percent faster. On the 38-percent-better-scaling point, Nvidia says that Intel compared 32 of its new Xeon Phi servers against four-year-old Nvidia Kepler K20 servers being used in ORNL's Titan supercomputer. Nvidia states that modern GPUs, paired with a newer interconnect, scale "almost linearly up to 128 GPUs."

Comments

Re:Here's the real reason for Nvidia's complaints

[Creepy]

Yeah, but their beef isn't about the cost, it is about the speed comparisons. Intel never has tried to compete in the GPU performance space - they are happy with being in the low cost space. If you just compare what you get for a certain cost I have no idea, but I'm guessing having so many more Intel chips in your cluster will add significant power and space requirements at the very least. You may actually be better off with the nVidia solution in the long run.

Worlds smallest violin for Nvidia

[Moheeheeko]

After they spent the last decade going out of their way to force "improvements" into new games (that either never work or cause severe issues for pc games) just to make their overpriced cards look better than AMD, they can go fuck themselves.

Re:Hmmm.

[hairyfeet]

I guess "Windows isn't done unless Lotus won't run" by your logic is completely reasonable behavior, it WAS their OS...right?

Or maybe if you'd stop waving your little Intel flag as hard as your squeeing fangirl ass can you'd know they didn't "not optimize" for other chips, they purposely designed their compiler to put out broken code on other chips so badly in fact that you could take a Via CPU (the only CPU that allows you to change the CPUID in software) and by simply changing the CPUID from "Centaur Hauls" to "Genuine Intel" you magically got a 30% performance boost...wow, the power of of CPUID huh?

Of course what it really was was a classic case of "Windows isn't done unless Lotus won't run" and this kind of behavior is typical of Intel, hence why they had to shell out 1.4 billion for market rigging and anti competitive behavior in the EU just 2 years ago. Would you like a quote from the judgement?

"The Commission demonstrated to the requisite legal standard that Intel attempted to conceal the anti-competitive nature of its practices and implemented a long term comprehensive strategy to foreclose AMD from the strategically most important sales channels. ... The General Court considers that none of the arguments raised by Intel supports the conclusion that the fine imposed is disproportionate. On the contrary, it must be considered that that fine is appropriate in the light of the facts of the case.

In other words the exact same shit MSFT got busted for and frankly they should get no less than what MSFT did, 10 years of being monitored by the courts to keep them from pulling shit like this again.