I don't think Intel's numbers in it are a lie or wrong, etc. I'm just saying, I'm not sure how valid the comparison is.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 3:48 PM To: The Hardware List Subject: Re: [H] Were Intel's benchmarks (slightly) rigged? Anand posted a followup that addresses the vast majority of his concerns: http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716 The end result? The figures are still mostly spot on. Conroe still kicks ass. The FEAR numbers were off--but as a result of Anand's initial error, NOT anything Intel did. Greg ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'The Hardware List'" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 3:19 PM Subject: [H] Were Intel's benchmarks (slightly) rigged? > Not denouncing their benchmarks entirely - I believe Intel's benchmarks of > their own chip are valid, and I think they have a winner on their hands. > > But someone evaluating them raises some real questions about the > comparison: > > http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/2006/03/if-only-they-had-time-machine.html >
