Roseta Top users hehehe I am 18!

Rosetta Top computers well, sorry :-)

Seti Top computers Do you see a 4x4?

The point I am trying to make is not about bragging!!!! it is about painting the right picture of what is getting sold and what is only in new paper articles ... 4x4 grandfather doesn t exist in reality, except Matt P, nobody has one, and he does not even dare to call it FX74 ... :)

I hear a lot of promiss and not so much delivery ...

Let me speak about something that I find very funny, but annoying, something about being honnest.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/30579_hi.pdf

When I speak for my company, I have legal departement, and many many people that check the "ethic" and the truthfulness of what we say, this is partly because we want a fair game. Here is what our Buddies from AMD call fair: When you look at the intel configuration, they ran the memory one grade lower, with slower timing, then, the size is not clear, they say 4 units, the middle raw say 512Megs sticks, the left raw say 1 Gigs!!!!
I don't even speak about the fact that an FX74 is 3.0GHz not 2.8GHz as they say in their documents!!!! Do they really know their products?

Then, they publish something that defit science ... They have the atomes of the transistor going through a black hole ... They double the resources compare to a FX62, and they get 5X scaling!!!
Let's be clear, this is just pure WRONG! every performance engineer on the planete will agree with me, a formula 1 engine, if you double the CC will not generate more than double the power. The physics laws apply as well to AMD!!!!
The best , they use an average with a fake 5X scaling to justify 4x4 GrandFather is close to a real QuadCore QX6700. If I do this in my company, I ll get a NO from Legal, and if I don't check with Legal, I ll be fired!!!!!!

I love competiting, but please keep it clean!!!!
I am sure later that I will be told it is a typo, as usual, I just have hard time to thing they do this kind of typo!!!

Who?

PS:This is my personal opinion, and only represent what I think, my employer is not responsible for this, I post here as my hobby. I love competition :)

Intel makes comparisons, and AMD makes comparisons. They both show their products in the best light. Then they'll point out what was wrong with the comparison made by the other company (optimized code/drivers for their own machine, but ran the opponent's machine with the default WHQL safe drivers/code.) Then you can view reviews of the systems by 3rd parties and see a much more rounded picture of what the strengths of each system are. And the reviews by people that point out the failings of either side tend to be easier to believe as the truth than those that have only pointed out the weaknesses of one side.

It'd be interesting to see independent RAC/$ ratings of top systems and RAC/watt ratings of the same systems to give us a better idea of whether it's worth it to upgrade or when it'll be worthwhile to upgrade. :)

---

Intel makes comparisons, and AMD makes comparisons. They both show their products in the best light. Then they'll point out what was wrong with the comparison made by the other company (optimized code/drivers for their own machine, but ran the opponent's machine with the default WHQL safe drivers/code.) Then you can view reviews of the systems by 3rd parties and see a much more rounded picture of what the strengths of each system are. And the reviews by people that point out the failings of either side tend to be easier to believe as the truth than those that have only pointed out the weaknesses of one side.

It'd be interesting to see independent RAC/$ ratings of top systems and RAC/watt ratings of the same systems to give us a better idea of whether it's worth it to upgrade or when it'll be worthwhile to upgrade. :)

did you see any AMD in the top list?

then, you got your RAC/$ answer ... a GrandFather 4x4 is about the price of a Q6600 Quadcore, due the the price of the motherboard, but the Q6600 is much faster.

I can't still believe they can put the right frequency on their product, especially in a paper related to performance ... I am speech less.


who?

strangely ... the document just got pulled out :)

I still have a copy of it :)

anyway, as i was saying ... the FX 74 is nowhere to be find ...
http://shop.amd.com/us-en/products.aspx ==> if you dig, you could find one or 2, but pretty hard to find.



who?

strangely ... the document just got pulled out :)

no doubt AMD are now doing penance for the transgressions you have pointed out to them ;-)

but seriously,

I agree with you that competition should be fair, I wish it was.

Sadly all companies lie in their advertising. I used to work as a 'Financial Advisor' and my job was to give the client 'best advice'. Read the small print: best advice meant to offer the customer the best prduct from our range. So, according to us, *and* according to our regulator, if I said that one of the opposition's product better sutied that particular client, I was in trouble not only with my boss (to be expected) but also with the regulator. Duh?

I am cynical enough to believe that if we had an AMD opposite number here, they would find equally cynical stuff going on in your company's press releases. Which is sad because as engineers both you and your immediate colleagues, and the AMD engineers, would enjoy and benefit from honest comparisons.

Talking of honesty, a related virtue is openness.

The reason in the long term I prefer AMD to Intel is a non-technical one - in my view both comapnies have got good ideas and both comapnies have made huge mistakes in the time they've been competing, and both companies benefit from the presence of the other.

My preference is based on an open source issue. AMD have been more co-operative than Intel in releasing firmware tech spec for motherboards to the linuxbios project. Things that Intel regard as commercial in confidence, AMD will release to the anti-confidential open source community in order that both AMD and linuxbios benefit from each others ideas.

Intel have said they will release the next generation of bios code under an open source licence, but only did so many years after AMD were regulalry releasing tech spec. My intuition is that Intel would not have released anything if AMD had not pointed the way. And it seems apparent to me as an outside observer that Intel are still reluctant to have other people write firmware code for their boards, whereas AMD welcome the idea.

regards,
River~~

strangely ... the document just got pulled out :)

no doubt AMD are now doing penance for the transgressions you have pointed out to them ;-)

but seriously,

I agree with you that competition should be fair, I wish it was.

Sadly all companies lie in their advertising. I used to work as a 'Financial Advisor' and my job was to give the client 'best advice'. Read the small print: best advice meant to offer the customer the best prduct from our range. So, according to us, *and* according to our regulator, if I said that one of the opposition's product better sutied that particular client, I was in trouble not only with my boss (to be expected) but also with the regulator. Duh?

I am cynical enough to believe that if we had an AMD opposite number here, they would find equally cynical stuff going on in your company's press releases. Which is sad because as engineers both you and your immediate colleagues, and the AMD engineers, would enjoy and benefit from honest comparisons.

Talking of honesty, a related virtue is openness.

The reason in the long term I prefer AMD to Intel is a non-technical one - in my view both comapnies have got good ideas and both comapnies have made huge mistakes in the time they've been competing, and both companies benefit from the presence of the other.

My preference is based on an open source issue. AMD have been more co-operative than Intel in releasing firmware tech spec for motherboards to the linuxbios project. Things that Intel regard as commercial in confidence, AMD will release to the anti-confidential open source community in order that both AMD and linuxbios benefit from each others ideas.

Intel have said they will release the next generation of bios code under an open source licence, but only did so many years after AMD were regulalry releasing tech spec. My intuition is that Intel would not have released anything if AMD had not pointed the way. And it seems apparent to me as an outside observer that Intel are still reluctant to have other people write firmware code for their boards, whereas AMD welcome the idea.

regards,
River~~

We never released a number that defit the physics laws.

who?

strangely ... the document just got pulled out :)

no doubt AMD are now doing penance for the transgressions you have pointed out to them ;-)

but seriously,

I agree with you that competition should be fair, I wish it was.

Sadly all companies lie in their advertising. I used to work as a 'Financial Advisor' and my job was to give the client 'best advice'. Read the small print: best advice meant to offer the customer the best prduct from our range. So, according to us, *and* according to our regulator, if I said that one of the opposition's product better sutied that particular client, I was in trouble not only with my boss (to be expected) but also with the regulator. Duh?

I am cynical enough to believe that if we had an AMD opposite number here, they would find equally cynical stuff going on in your company's press releases. Which is sad because as engineers both you and your immediate colleagues, and the AMD engineers, would enjoy and benefit from honest comparisons.

Talking of honesty, a related virtue is openness.

The reason in the long term I prefer AMD to Intel is a non-technical one - in my view both comapnies have got good ideas and both comapnies have made huge mistakes in the time they've been competing, and both companies benefit from the presence of the other.

My preference is based on an open source issue. AMD have been more co-operative than Intel in releasing firmware tech spec for motherboards to the linuxbios project. Things that Intel regard as commercial in confidence, AMD will release to the anti-confidential open source community in order that both AMD and linuxbios benefit from each others ideas.

Intel have said they will release the next generation of bios code under an open source licence, but only did so many years after AMD were regulalry releasing tech spec. My intuition is that Intel would not have released anything if AMD had not pointed the way. And it seems apparent to me as an outside observer that Intel are still reluctant to have other people write firmware code for their boards, whereas AMD welcome the idea.

regards,
River~~

We never released a number that defit the physics laws.

who?

And how does this relate to the open source issue raised by River?

read the title of the threads!

who?

And you've never seen a thread go into another direction?

River raised a point (the open-source-thingy) which you seem to want to ignore. Can't you think of a good counter-argument?

I'm not an Intel or AMD fanboy either way, but you seem to be intent on bashing the opposition which, admittedly, seems to be in a fairly bad position already. Or to put it another way, what's the point? Gloating?

so, you really think this ...
so, take a look at this:
OpenCV

or this, Open source drivers
There is many other examples, they don t come to my mind as links,I did myself contributed for the Hyperthreading support on BSD,on my personal time...

I guess, you just repeted a FUD without checking it.

Take a look at Open Computer Vision library ... it is pretty cool. I don t even speak about PCIexpress developement, USB, Bluetooth etc ... all of this is shared with many companies!!!

I am not here to answer the attack against my company ... I am here to express MYSELF, and I did about the laws a physics getting broken by a company ...

who?

Roseta Top users hehehe I am 18!

Rosetta Top computers well, sorry :-)

Seti Top computers Do you see a 4x4?

The point I am trying to make is not about bragging!!!! it is about painting the right picture of what is getting sold and what is only in new paper articles ... 4x4 grandfather doesn t exist in reality, except Matt P, nobody has one, and he does not even dare to call it FX74 ... :)

I hear a lot of promiss and not so much delivery ...

Let me speak about something that I find very funny, but annoying, something about being honnest.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/30579_hi.pdf

When I speak for my company, I have legal departement, and many many people that check the "ethic" and the truthfulness of what we say, this is partly because we want a fair game. Here is what our Buddies from AMD call fair: When you look at the intel configuration, they ran the memory one grade lower, with slower timing, then, the size is not clear, they say 4 units, the middle raw say 512Megs sticks, the left raw say 1 Gigs!!!!
I don't even speak about the fact that an FX74 is 3.0GHz not 2.8GHz as they say in their documents!!!! Do they really know their products?

Then, they publish something that defit science ... They have the atomes of the transistor going through a black hole ... They double the resources compare to a FX62, and they get 5X scaling!!!
Let's be clear, this is just pure WRONG! every performance engineer on the planete will agree with me, a formula 1 engine, if you double the CC will not generate more than double the power. The physics laws apply as well to AMD!!!!
The best , they use an average with a fake 5X scaling to justify 4x4 GrandFather is close to a real QuadCore QX6700. If I do this in my company, I ll get a NO from Legal, and if I don't check with Legal, I ll be fired!!!!!!

I love competiting, but please keep it clean!!!!
I am sure later that I will be told it is a typo, as usual, I just have hard time to thing they do this kind of typo!!!

Who?

PS:This is my personal opinion, and only represent what I think, my employer is not responsible for this, I post here as my hobby. I love competition :)

Please get off your high horse "hehehe I am 18!" I think your 12 to tell you the truth. One reason you don't see AMD in those High RAC's is because those accounts are at University's or large companies that buy large amounts of Intel computers. If they had that many university's with AMD systems I think it would be a different story.

Second I'm sure that Intel has NEVER fudged any of there benchmarks nooo INTEL would never do that.

Third THANK GOD FOR AMD because In an INTEL ONLY WORLD CPUs would still be running at 1.5 GHz because there would be no competition to push speed and prices would still be outrages. Thanks AMD

Fourth So WHO? Do you work for I think your opinion is a little fogged by a ......paycheck???? thats right!....WHO? Works for INTEL so of course he is going to objectionably tell you the truth because Intel always tells the truth. ROTFL

Let's be clear, this is just pure WRONG! every performance engineer on the planete will agree with me, a formula 1 engine, if you double the CC will not generate more than double the power.

Oh yea lets bring in a subject you truly have no clue about, there are 2.0 liter engines that put out 1000HP an engine that puts out stock 140HP can put out 1000HP modified don't get me started on cars I think that is more than double the HP it must be defying physics. Heres a link in case you don't believe me http://www.thecarconnection.com/Enthusiasts/Motorsports_and_Racing/GM_Prods_Ecotec_to_1000_HP.S247.A5482.html

SO stop your AMD bashing and just Crunch Numbers period

---

Itanic in the news

With the comparisons made about the various flavors of cpu from both companies, it looks like it's a matter of seeing which company can execute better as to who will be on top with the release of the Barcelona. I remember the torture of waiting for the Athlon64 cpus to come out after the Opteron was released; and the fun of having an X2 when they came out. Whatever happens, when it comes time to get a new system in a year or two, there should be a pretty decent boost in production available over the current system - from both camps.

---

In fairness I will add that Who? is right, there have been times when Intel have contributed (and contributed well) to open source.

Indeed, and ironically, at the start of the LinuxBIOS project Intel were the co-operative comapany and it took a little time for AMD to divulge any info at all. Somewhat later both comapnies switched policy, and for the last few years Intel have been all proprietary (except about legacy boards) and AMD have been the ones ready and willing to release tech spec that is needed to write the low level stuff.

I would like to distance myself from the 'paycheck' suggestion. Rather I would suggest that Who? is a good team player, and like all team players is strongly loyal to his team. Which is a good thing until it goes too far, until the point where the team player becomes blind to the good points of the opposition.

The point I was making in my previous post was that decisions like levels of release of info, and the marketng slant put on the capabilities of the product are outside of the engineers' control in all companies (Intel and AMD and all other companies bigger than one man bands).

R~~

A very big ditto to Dcarey's point regarding viable competition leading to a better product. It reminds me of the days before the majority of radio stations became corporate clones and run at a national level. When they were locally run it was very obvious the effect that having a competing station in the same music genre had on the quality of programming a station produced. You could watch a station almost overnight go from being great to absolute junk when their competitor switched formats and they no longer had to compete in that genre. It's very much in the best interests of the consumer and Intel itself that a strong competitor exists in the CPU market.

I don't wish to flame you Who? but I can see how the tone of your posts invites it. You're not preaching to the choir here, ie your coworkers at the office or a group of Intel devotees. There may be reasons other than whose product is better or perceived problems with marketing as to why someone chooses a particular company. I myself worked for a small computer manufacturer for a number of years and saw first-hand the very aggressive maneuvering Intel employed to make sure we only bought their chips. That influenced my decision to not buy Intel products for quite some time. You can say, and we all fully understand that you do not officially represent Intel when you post here but ultimately, it's difficult to have it both ways. How you present yourself here does reflect on your employer to some degree.

I guess the bottom line is that we're here for the benefit of science and humanity in general not to engage in a lot of schoolyard chest-thumping over who or what is "better". Our RAC numbers are fun to watch and foster some good competition and rivalry but at the end of the day they are just that - numbers. I don't think Dr. Baker will FedEx you a cookie if yours is the highest. Just make your company's products the absolute best they can be and don't waste so many cycles pointing out the short-comings of your competitor. Cheers.

Edit: fixed spelling errors

---

I know this is completely off-topic, but is there any windows update or patch to optimize dual core performance for Intel processors? I know that there is a patch for AMD processors.

---

"Did you see any AMD grandfather 4x4 on BOINC?"


Take a look and you will see something...


http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37907


http://www.boincstats.com/stats/host_cpu_stats.php?pr=sah&st=0&or=10

Take a look to the computer in the first place.

---

Please get off your high horse "hehehe I am 18!" I think your 12 to tell you the truth.

A 12 year old knows the difference between your and you're.

One reason you don't see AMD in those High RAC's is because those accounts are at University's or large companies that buy large amounts of Intel computers. If they had that many university's with AMD systems I think it would be a different story.

He is talking about the Top computers list, not the Top participants list. The number of computers on the account has nothing to do with it.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

http://www.boincstats.com/stats/host_cpu_stats.php?pr=sah&st=0&or=10

Take a look to the computer in the first place.

Yeah, but that stat is not a good indicator of performance. It this the average of only two (likely) dedicated crunchers. The reason the other chips aren't as high, is because it averages their RAC together, including the part time crunchers, multi-project crunchers, as well as those who have left the project and approaching 0 RAC.

Also, 1489 for a quad core chip is not very impressive on SETI. The #1 machine is a dual quad Mac, with a RAC of 6800+. That works out to 3400 per quad chip. So the AMD is not even half as fast per the RAC today. Now maybe it is still growing. I'll keep an eye on it.

You can too here:

http://www.boincstats.com/stats/host_graph.php?pr=sah&id=2877462

and here

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=2877462

BTW, this host was added back in October. Are we *sure* this is the new chip??

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

Please get off your high horse "hehehe I am 18!" I think your 12 to tell you the truth.

A 12 year old knows the difference between your and you're.

One reason you don't see AMD in those High RAC's is because those accounts are at University's or large companies that buy large amounts of Intel computers. If they had that many university's with AMD systems I think it would be a different story.

He is talking about the Top computers list, not the Top participants list. The number of computers on the account has nothing to do with it.

Yea your and you're ohhh I screwed up oh my god sorry....the world will end now!

ANYWAY fact is the guy works for INTEL and I am sorry but if your going to come on here and bash one company for saying anything I would rather see Intel bashed because INTEL would still be putting out CRAP and playing the MHz game, if your engine does 15000RPM but only puts out 1 HP it is still slow.

I will be the first to admit that the Core 2 Duo is one FAST CPU that can in many cases BLOW out ATHLONS, but it is a seesaw world AMD will come out with something better then INTEL will and so on. In the End you WIN thats all that matters Period!

---

Yea your and you're ohhh I screwed up oh my god sorry....the world will end now!

Then you missed the point. Insulting people is pointless. You call him childish, I call you ignorant. Was anything really accomplished here?

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

Yea your and you're ohhh I screwed up oh my god sorry....the world will end now!

Then you missed the point. Insulting people is pointless. You call him childish, I call you ignorant. Was anything really accomplished here?

Whatever dude he comes off as arrogant and acts as if he is better than everyone else so NO nothing is accomplished here? That's why Im going to stop wasting valuable cycles on posting in this post now and use them for crunching.

You and WHO? have fun

---

Whatever dude he comes off as arrogant and acts as if he is better than everyone else so NO nothing is accomplished here

That *he* is better than everyone else? I have read him boasting only about Intel chips.

Also, do you understand that english is not his native language? That perhaps you are inferring an attitude he did not intentionally imply?

Just relax. We're all friends here.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA