Sarcasm is great ain't it .
As for Mr. Wasson's integrity,top comment on his 2nd article reveals double standards of TR:
Link of interest.
10-20%? Have you even seen how the die looks like? This ain't SB.The difference is that the benchmarks were not narrowly confined to a single aspect like integrated gpu performance (which is like what 10-20% of total die area?), less savvy viewers could be led to the wrong conclusion that the AMD cpu is generally faster than a price equivalent Intel. The Conroe preview included a bunch of games and media encoding apps which is fairly decent for a preview.
So wait..;
All this commotion and flames are simply because AMD gave reviewers the possibility to expose a part of their review before the original NDA?
This is manipulation? this is unethical? serious... do some guys even read and think about the nonsense you are throwing in the world?
What if AMD did the reverse? gave away their cpu performance first and IGP performance later? would you still call out the same bullshit? Would that still be unethical because AMD makes the last thought about trinity outstanding?
My thoughts are: the slaughter vs any opponent was so big on the IGP area, you want to see it rectified by cpu performance.. and because it is not available you are all gridging your teeth to get the sweet sweet revenge... Honestly step away from the screen and read the rubbish arguments... and sleep a night before you post something...
So wait..;
All this commotion and flames are simply because AMD gave reviewers the possibility to expose a part of their review before the original NDA?
This is manipulation? this is unethical? serious... do some guys even read and think about the nonsense you are throwing in the world?
What if AMD did the reverse? gave away their cpu performance first and IGP performance later? would you still call out the same bullshit? Would that still be unethical because AMD makes the last thought about trinity outstanding?
My thoughts are: the slaughter vs any opponent was so big on the IGP area, you want to see it rectified by cpu performance.. and because it is not available you are all gridging your teeth to get the sweet sweet revenge... Honestly step away from the screen and read the rubbish arguments... and sleep a night before you post something...
Too bad enthusiasts make around few percent of total consumer market . 95+% have no clue about hw and want their new PC to be fast enough in both office,surfing and games. And if someone tells me that Trinity is "slow" in first 2 workloads then he is either lying on purpose or he has no clue what's he talking about.
Those who need faster GPU won't even look at "APUs" in the first place. Those who don't know what GPU is are most likely getting an overkill with APU in the first place. Enthusiast want the absolute best and they will almost always buy discrete components. Luckily for AMD they comprise a small percentage of user base so practically they are irrelevant.
PS Not that it's bad to be labeled "fastest". Intel was "speeding up" up even the internetz!1! with their CPUs not so long ago , look how good that marketing BS affected their image. Everybody knows intel is better now. I bet you will even find some sales people recommending HD4000 for "games" to unsuspecting buyers.
Yep. AMD is trying to play this card by allowing only selective benchmarks.95+% have no clue about hw and want their new PC to be fast enough in both office,surfing and games.
Well, there is a difference between "slow", and "slower than..." Would you choose something "fast" but still much "slower than..." other solution in these 2 workloads (especially if you don't play games more complicated then solitaire)? It is pity that the argument of "good enough performance" has become the motto of AMD recentlyAnd if someone tells me that Trinity is "slow" in first 2 workloads then he is either lying on purpose or he has no clue what's he talking about.
10-20%? Have you even seen how the die looks like? This ain't SB.
.........
It's closer to 50% of die area and takes much more space than tiny x86 cores.
The only thing, in my opinion, which makes AMD a bad takeover target is that anybody looking to swoop them up knows they would need to have deep enough pockets to go at it with Intel afterwards.
They won't be going head to head with Intel because they'll be buying a company that makes x86 CPUs yet will not gain their x86 license.
They'd get a good GPU company, but the CPU division would be in chaos and they'd also acquire all of AMD's debt.
The problem is having the producer of a product you are reviewing telling you what you can print and what you cant.
The test setup
I should start by saying that we very rarely publish benchmark numbers obtained at trade shows or in other sorts of pre-arranged settings outside of our own test labs. We have elected to do so in this case because of an extraordinary opportunity to get an early glimpse at a brand-new CPU architecture in action. You should know, though, what the test conditions were like.
We used test systems pre-configured by Intel before the show, and we had very limited time to conduct testing or inspect the systems. We were not allowed to look inside of the case of either PC, and the scope of the benchmarks we were allowed to run was defined by Intel. We weren't given the leeway to record our own custom timedemos for the games, and we didn't have enough time to run each test three times or even reboot between the tests. Intel PR reps painted timedemo results on the screen with white-out after our Quake 4 test run.
Worst case scenario for AMD... someone buys them and whips it into gear.
You mean something like that ??
Intel Conroe performance previewed
We take an early sample for a quick spin
by Scott Wasson — 3:56 PM on March 9, 2006
Are you using this example to try to say, "Intel also is deceitful in dictating this CPU ONLY Core2Duo", or are you trying to say that if Intel did this with Conroe, then AMD can do this with their latest APU?
I mean honestly AtenRa, what are you trying to say here? I see you rolling your eyes, but not seeing what you're actually saying.
We have elected to do so in this case because of an extraordinary opportunity to get an early glimpse at a brand-new CPU architecture in action
The same guy that made a Preview by using an Intel per-configured system and benchmarks defined by Intel has a problem making an AMD Preview because he could only post iGPU benchmarks that HE would choose and run them in a system of his choice.
Double standards ???
I guess he wasn't interesting of having an early glimpse at a brand-new iGPU architecture this time. :whiste:
Don't guess, instead let me enlighten you.
The Tech Report was differentiating between a preview(where they are happy to take what they can get, as is) and the FULL BLOWN REVIEW, where they are not prepared to be manipulated.
If this was an actual preview, rather than the Full Review that has AMD trying to stipulate what could be shown at what date, then you would have a point.So, if AMD would just give them the Benchmarks (as Intel did) they wouldnt have any problem posting the Preview ?? Is that what you saying ???
The same guy that made a Preview by using an Intel per-configured system and benchmarks defined by Intel has a problem making an AMD Preview because he could only post iGPU benchmarks that HE would choose and run them in a system of his choice.
Double standards ???
I guess he wasn't interesting of having an early glimpse at a brand-new iGPU architecture this time. :whiste:
I just don't get why you think drawing a parallel with a prior Intel launch exonerates AMD from any wrong doing here. If that is in fact what you are stating. Do you in fact approve of the manipulation (of any kind) of the review process? Be it Intel, or AMD or anyone?