VIEL interessanter finde ich die Kommentare zu "Thomas Pabst & Intel"!!!
Nun wundert mich echt NICHTS mehr, weder der komische AMD-artikel vor ein paar Moanten NOCH die Fehler, die in THG-Reviews gemacht werden...die machen das nämlich offenbar ABSICHTLICH!!!!! <img border="0" alt="[Wallbash]" title="" src="graemlins/wallbash.gif" />
Auch die Infos zum Sysmark 2001 und 2002 finde ich äußerst interessant-->
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Zitat:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Eight of thirteen Photoshop filters favored the Athlon XP in SysMark 2001. All of the eight filters were removed in SysMark 2002 to be replaced with repeated filters that favored the Pentium 4. The deliberate exclusion of only these filters suggests specific intent by BAPCo/Intel to skew the workload towards the P4.
Greater than 90% of the Excel portion of SysMark 2002 is devoted to sorting, when sorting is an atypical task in Excel. However, the P4 is strong sorting data due to its bandwidth. At best, grossly skewing Excel towards an atypical task suggests sheer incompetence by the benchmark developers. But much more likely, given the other evidence listed here, given the Athlon XP's powerful FPU and unsurpassed performance in random memory accesses, it demonstrates the rubber-man contortions that BAPCo/Intel were willing to go to in order to bias SysMark towards the P4.
Microsoft Access is a wildly popular database program. Although it does not carry the multi-user robustness of Oracle, MySQL or Microsoft SQL Server, it is a very fast database useful in handling even large amounts of data. Access is one of the most clear-cut candidates for performance testing since queries and reports over many megabytes of data can take a lot of time. However, the Intel Pentium 4 is very, very bad in Access which was demonstrated in SysMark 2001 where it was completely dominated by the Athlon XP. So for 2002, the Microsoft Access component of SysMark has been almost completely removed. Now, according to AMD, Access contributes less than two seconds to the overall time of the suite. For comparison, Photoshop, a test that now favors the P4 as mentioned above, contributes ten-times more to the SysMark2002 final score.
The Flash component of SysMark 2001 was gutted for 2002 when over 88% of the test was removed. This 88% happened to favor the Athlon XP. Again, this demonstrates that a very specific type of scalpel was used for a very specific purpose in the development of SysMark.
And don't forget SysMark2001 which was introduced before AMD's SSE-enabled Athlon XP. The Pentium 4 came out on top of the Athlon XP in the Internet Content Creation portion of the test -- until AMD and Microsoft distributed a patch to enable recognition of SSE in the version of Windows Media Encoder (WME) distributed with SysMark 2001.
An unusual act in itself that has not been duplicated before or since, BAPCo provided a specific version of a program -- WME -- that had to be install before SysMark 2001. Inexplicably, this version of WME comprised a whopping 31% of the overall ICC score to SysMark 2001. (The percentages are taken directly from a BAPCo white paper).
After receiving a great deal of criticism for their choice regarding WME, BAPCo distributed the corrected version in 2002. However, the scoring emphasis for WME magically dropped from 31% to only 12% now that it became clear that the Athlon XP had robust SSE performance.
Again, the fact that AMD constructed and distributed this explosive presentation is highly newsworthy. It is also unlikely that the chipmaker would risk its reputation by providing detailed data that might be possible to disprove.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">HAMMER oder? <img border="0" alt="[Madfire]" title="" src="graemlins/madfire.gif" />
FAZIT: THG suckz!!!
