I understand, and we _should_ be suspect of numbers provided from a vendor's
machine, even if Anand did perform all of the tests.
But Anand got some more time with the test systems, and addressed many of
the concerns, including CnQ, the BIOS revision, and others. He re-ran the
benchmarks after making these corrections, and received...about the same
numbers.
I do think Intel has a part that will finally leap ahead of AMD's
offerings...and I highly doubt that AM2/DDR2 will close that gap.
Clearly, though, we won't know for certain until after it is released. I'm
just excited. :)
Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'The Hardware List'" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 3:50 PM
Subject: RE: [H] Were Intel's benchmarks (slightly) rigged?
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
