I have a deodorant that claims to get me laid by gangs of supermodels at the bus stop.
The claims made by the benchmark are irrelevant. You can't tell what one benchmark does by looking at the art on the box. Anyone who doesn't analyze the benchmark's mix of tests doesn't understand the benchmark. Anyone who relies on just one benchmark doesn't understand the complexity of a computer.
However, this benchmark can be used by people who do a certain sort of computing. They can weight it higher than what other benchmarks might tell them. Messing with it by throwing in tests they do not and never did care about will skew their decisions to chips they should not be buying.
So AMD isn't just being petulant. It's being petulant because it couldn't con business computer users into buying products that give them features they don't use at the expense of performance/dollar in features they do use.
Sysmark is supposed to measure overall systems performance, not just be a CPU benchmark.
Since it doesn't measure 3D performance, that hasn't been true since 3D hardware became nominal equipment in all desktop computers. It's no reason to get all huffy and run off 15 years later claiming they're not playing fair.
The problem is that SYSmark claims to be a full-system benchmark, not a CPU benchmark.
The average hardware site runs a dozen different benchmarks on every part before making a comparison. The benchmarks have random degrees of orthogonality and overlap.
It hardly matters what the consortium says about its benchmark, once they're aggregated like that. Just so long as it's stable so that parts can be compared when tested in different times and locations.
So then the answer is to stop innovating unless everybody else is doing the same thing?
Everybody else is doing the same thing.
Intel and nVidia both have APUs already.
This is definitely about sour grapes. SYSmark is a benchmark. If you keep moving the mark on the bench, it stops being a benchmark. If the mark is the same for everyone, and AMD keeps not measuring up to it, it's not scientifically sound for AMD to claim the mark is the part that's wrong. It's pure petulance. Even if nVidia and VIA did the same thing.
The thing is worth $1.20 but their profit plans say to price it near $2.00, but common sales tactics say to make that first digit smaller. They could price it a $1.95 or $1.99 instead of $2.00 and still make a profit. Guess which most will pick? Guess which most will pick if there are no pennies? Getting rid of the pennies could save you 4 cents per purchase.
>but I still wear a timex ironman which has the same functionality as the timex ironman I got in 1994 (indiglo FTW!).
I'm wearing a Citizen that has about the same functionality.
But it recharges itself in sunlight and has all the functions of a digital alarm-chronograph in an analog format.
I'm sure it's not much more trouble at this point to put into it all the stuff that's in my phone. Well, maybe not this year. 2-3 years from now, though, I may be playing Angry Birds on it.
The irony inherent in the breakage is why they're funny. Cross-coupling ideas that don't belong. Also funny when done right. Funnier when the new idea belongs but you hadn't quite got there yet (comedic timing is about getting there just slightly before it bubbles up from the observer's subconscious to conscious). But then you can explain it in language.
You can't be found guilty of a crime you were coerced into performing.
Proving anything about it is iffy, but the burden is on the prosecution.
The only place I can find anything about making it illegal to pay ransom is in...Somalia. Yeah, that makes sense.
The UK repealed its anti-ransom-paying laws in...1782. Probably just to take their minds off how things were going in The Colonies by focussing on that sexy Pirate stuff in the Caribbean.
I believe that would be the crux of the otherwise laughable claim that they could be charged with supporting terrorism.
Goes like this:
Achmed: Hussain, did you get the money I wired you? Hussain: Yes, $100,000 from Middle-Eastern Union. Achmed: Good, good, and -- just a sec, there's someone at the door. Praise allah. Hussain: I'll hold, god is great. Feds: OPEN UP! WE KNOW YOU'RE SENDING MONEY TO TERRORISTS! Achmed: Gotta go. Salam. Hussain. Cheers. Alla hu Ackbar. Say hi to Naiya for me. Achmed: Will do...COMING! Feds: Why did you wire $100,000 to a "J. Random Suspicious Bearded Fellow c/o Not A Terrorist H4xxor, Inc."? Achmed: They called me and said they were going to DDoS my MMORPG if I didn't GTFO PDQ. Feds: A likely story. Achmed: You got to believe me. If it was terrorist funding I would have used BitCoin. They insisted on Euros. Feds: That's just what you'd say....
AMD has chosen an architectural roadmap that makes the GPU and CPU part of the same APU. SYSmark does not measure 3-D graphics performance. At all. So while AMD is pursuing a path that will give its APUs greater overall performance than the CPUs they contain, they are actually hamstringing themselves in the CPU-only testing arena, because the CPU portion of thier APUs will seem relatively lower in performance at the same price point.
AMD's proper course of action should have been to promote an APU-specific benchmark. Instead, it tried to change SYSmark to do something it doesn't do.
It was denied the right to twist the benchmark in its favor. Rather than coming up with the obvious solution of spinning off a new benchmark consortium to develop an APU-specific test, it started crying and ran to its room shouting, "I hate you! I hate you! I hate you!"
AMD is, really, behind a major 8-ball right here. It has, again, put all of its eggs into a rather hopeful basket, and come up with fewer than expected. At least this time, unlike with the Barcelona debacle, it isn't doing it while roller-skating blindfolded through a car-wash. That time it cost them their fabs. They don't have much left to sell.
Albeit, it's not taped to the top of the sunroof; it's more like it's stuffed in a dark magnetized box in one of the bumpers, so you never notice it if you aren't looking for it, but anyone else who's built one correctly knows exactly where to check when they see your car in the parking lot at the mall.
They're building their own cars using plans and parts from Amazon, and leaving the keys in the plastic bag that was taped to the top of the sunroof at the factory.
Slashdot Mirror
AMD marketing salts its releases with facts, as well. It's the, uh, "additional material," and the biased interpretation you have to be wary of.
I have a deodorant that claims to get me laid by gangs of supermodels at the bus stop.
The claims made by the benchmark are irrelevant. You can't tell what one benchmark does by looking at the art on the box. Anyone who doesn't analyze the benchmark's mix of tests doesn't understand the benchmark. Anyone who relies on just one benchmark doesn't understand the complexity of a computer.
However, this benchmark can be used by people who do a certain sort of computing. They can weight it higher than what other benchmarks might tell them. Messing with it by throwing in tests they do not and never did care about will skew their decisions to chips they should not be buying.
So AMD isn't just being petulant. It's being petulant because it couldn't con business computer users into buying products that give them features they don't use at the expense of performance/dollar in features they do use.
Sysmark is supposed to measure overall systems performance, not just be a CPU benchmark.
Since it doesn't measure 3D performance, that hasn't been true since 3D hardware became nominal equipment in all desktop computers. It's no reason to get all huffy and run off 15 years later claiming they're not playing fair.
The problem is that SYSmark claims to be a full-system benchmark, not a CPU benchmark.
The average hardware site runs a dozen different benchmarks on every part before making a comparison. The benchmarks have random degrees of orthogonality and overlap.
It hardly matters what the consortium says about its benchmark, once they're aggregated like that. Just so long as it's stable so that parts can be compared when tested in different times and locations.
So then the answer is to stop innovating unless everybody else is doing the same thing?
Everybody else is doing the same thing.
Intel and nVidia both have APUs already.
This is definitely about sour grapes. SYSmark is a benchmark. If you keep moving the mark on the bench, it stops being a benchmark. If the mark is the same for everyone, and AMD keeps not measuring up to it, it's not scientifically sound for AMD to claim the mark is the part that's wrong. It's pure petulance. Even if nVidia and VIA did the same thing.
They do that anyway.
The thing is worth $1.20 but their profit plans say to price it near $2.00, but common sales tactics say to make that first digit smaller. They could price it a $1.95 or $1.99 instead of $2.00 and still make a profit. Guess which most will pick? Guess which most will pick if there are no pennies? Getting rid of the pennies could save you 4 cents per purchase.
No weapon that can be defeated by a week in a drawer with a moth is "awesome."
Why would a one-legged duck need money?
>but I still wear a timex ironman which has the same functionality as the timex ironman I got in 1994 (indiglo FTW!).
I'm wearing a Citizen that has about the same functionality.
But it recharges itself in sunlight and has all the functions of a digital alarm-chronograph in an analog format.
I'm sure it's not much more trouble at this point to put into it all the stuff that's in my phone. Well, maybe not this year. 2-3 years from now, though, I may be playing Angry Birds on it.
By voice.
Puns aren't expressed in language.
They're a deliberate breakage of a language.
The irony inherent in the breakage is why they're funny. Cross-coupling ideas that don't belong. Also funny when done right. Funnier when the new idea belongs but you hadn't quite got there yet (comedic timing is about getting there just slightly before it bubbles up from the observer's subconscious to conscious). But then you can explain it in language.
Even if it's a pun. Funny how that works.
'Some things just can't be expressed in another language.'
Then it's not a human idea, and probably wasn't expressed in the original language.
You can't be found guilty of a crime you were coerced into performing.
Proving anything about it is iffy, but the burden is on the prosecution.
The only place I can find anything about making it illegal to pay ransom is in...Somalia. Yeah, that makes sense.
The UK repealed its anti-ransom-paying laws in...1782. Probably just to take their minds off how things were going in The Colonies by focussing on that sexy Pirate stuff in the Caribbean.
I believe that would be the crux of the otherwise laughable claim that they could be charged with supporting terrorism.
Goes like this:
Achmed: Hussain, did you get the money I wired you? ...
Hussain: Yes, $100,000 from Middle-Eastern Union.
Achmed: Good, good, and -- just a sec, there's someone at the door. Praise allah.
Hussain: I'll hold, god is great.
Feds: OPEN UP! WE KNOW YOU'RE SENDING MONEY TO TERRORISTS!
Achmed: Gotta go. Salam.
Hussain. Cheers. Alla hu Ackbar. Say hi to Naiya for me.
Achmed: Will do...COMING!
Feds: Why did you wire $100,000 to a "J. Random Suspicious Bearded Fellow c/o Not A Terrorist H4xxor, Inc."?
Achmed: They called me and said they were going to DDoS my MMORPG if I didn't GTFO PDQ.
Feds: A likely story.
Achmed: You got to believe me. If it was terrorist funding I would have used BitCoin. They insisted on Euros.
Feds: That's just what you'd say.
And so on.
I think you're thinking of The Informant.
AMD has chosen an architectural roadmap that makes the GPU and CPU part of the same APU. SYSmark does not measure 3-D graphics performance. At all. So while AMD is pursuing a path that will give its APUs greater overall performance than the CPUs they contain, they are actually hamstringing themselves in the CPU-only testing arena, because the CPU portion of thier APUs will seem relatively lower in performance at the same price point.
AMD's proper course of action should have been to promote an APU-specific benchmark. Instead, it tried to change SYSmark to do something it doesn't do.
It was denied the right to twist the benchmark in its favor. Rather than coming up with the obvious solution of spinning off a new benchmark consortium to develop an APU-specific test, it started crying and ran to its room shouting, "I hate you! I hate you! I hate you!"
AMD is, really, behind a major 8-ball right here. It has, again, put all of its eggs into a rather hopeful basket, and come up with fewer than expected. At least this time, unlike with the Barcelona debacle, it isn't doing it while roller-skating blindfolded through a car-wash. That time it cost them their fabs. They don't have much left to sell.
It's little wonder that it's not having an easy time of finding a new CEO.
Um, linking to Charlie Demerjian is like linking to AMD marketing.
Just saying.
Albeit, it's not taped to the top of the sunroof; it's more like it's stuffed in a dark magnetized box in one of the bumpers, so you never notice it if you aren't looking for it, but anyone else who's built one correctly knows exactly where to check when they see your car in the parking lot at the mall.
They're building their own cars using plans and parts from Amazon, and leaving the keys in the plastic bag that was taped to the top of the sunroof at the factory.
ADA was designed by committee. C and C++ were evolved by committee.
Like the tech economy, nerd-level news has been meh for a long while.
Coincidentally, since shortly after the introduction of the last rev of the C++ standard...
How much is gold?
And 11 years for the second iteration is agile development.
"Your honor, I didn't do the crime. I would have tweeted about it. Just like I did for all my other crimes. See?"
keyboard?
and I meant hyperspace. damn autocollate.
I was going to say credible, but same post otherwise.