Will Anand sell out?

[jhalada]

Budman,

I had a BP6 with Dual 366@550 for a few months & it was like night & day when i switched over to an Asus K7V & Athlon 600.

you need an upgrade bad.

I know. As I read these reviews, I am putting together a list of neat stuff to put in my next computer.

 

[Thorn]

Blah, blah, blah...

Never have I seen so much brilliance and stupidity gathered in the same place.

If anything I think Anand may be a little biased towards AMD... but with good reason. They deliver the goods. For a long time now AMD has been thrashing Intel in the most important area, VALUE. NOW, AMD is kicking Intel in the teeth in almost every catagory... value, performance, innovation, etc. Anand's seen this unfolding for quite some time now, and I'd even venture to say that he's just about been busting at the seams with pride for AMD's accomplishments (sort of a David vs Goliath outcome for 2000). But despite all of this, I've not seen anyting but integrity in Anand's composure and writing in the face of this monumental dethroning. There are very few people in this industry that have the true character and dedication that he shows in everything he does for us, his readers. He's not a sell-out or a scheister, he's simply a guy who loves PCs and wants to share his enthusiasm and opinions with the hardware community so that we can make informed decisions. And if you ungrateful turds (and you know who you are) can't see the the truth of that, then you're already lost and don't deserve to benefit from the tireless work he puts forth every day.

And, as always, if you don't like my opinion you can eat my shorts. If you don't like the taste, try them with ketchup.

 

[Adul]

LOL Thorn

 

[Macro2]

Thorn,

"You said...But despite all of this, I've not seen anyting but integrity in Anand's composure and writing in the face of this monumental dethroning. There are very few people in this industry that have the true character and dedication that he shows in everything he does for us, his readers. He's not a sell-out or a scheister, he's simply a guy who loves PCs and wants to share his enthusiasm and opinions with the hardware community so that we can make informed decisions. And if you ungrateful turds (and you know who you are) can't see the the truth of that, then you're already lost and don't deserve to benefit from the tireless work he puts forth every day"
---
The review is not out yet. Surely Anand has done a great job in the past. We'd like to see this continue. If Anand is being manipulated by Intels compilers, the time to nip it in the bud is NOW, before the review of P4. Surely you don't want to see Intel hang the kid out to dry do you?
Intel has billions at stake with this launch. They know the P4 is slow clock for clock. They have to change the rules of the game to get the P4 to look good, plain and simple. They have to manipulate the benchmarks the reviewers use to more closely match the ones the put up on their website.
I look forward to seeing some sites bust them on this. From those, the new site winners will emerge. I hope Anand is one of them...

Mac

 

[Celstar]

I dont think he will. He's already making enough money from this site that he cant get influenced with more money. How many millions does one need to be happy?

 

[Rigoletto]

I don't have blind faith in Anand, I don't have blind faith in anybody, but I see that he has put in a lot of work for this site and he doesn't want to throw away his credibility. He also has these very successful forum boards, which I don't imagine really make money. He does the best at providing links to other sites in the web news. All in all, this seems to me the hardware site which has the most benevolent attitude to the users.

 

[jhalada]

AngelOfDeath,

Speaking of new members and looking at your profile, it seems that compared to me, you are the new member. And I happened to be a member of previous incarnations of Anand's forums for years.

 

[NOX]

<< They know the P4 is slow clock for clock. >>

How do you know that Intel knows this? Can you please back-up your statements with factual material, such as a link to a credible hardware review site that has done a thorough review of the P4. And when I mean credible, I mean someone like Anands, Tom?s, Ace?s etc?and not some, Oh?I got these benchmarks of a P4 from a reliable source stuff!

<< They have to manipulate the benchmarks the reviewers use to more closely match the ones the put up on their website. >>

How can ?they? manipulate anything when Anand will be doing the benchmarks himself? What ?they? put on their website has nothing to do with Anands review. Anand has already stated he gets no stipulations from anyone, so back off!

[EDIT]
I
<III>

 

[maun]

<<Most of us requested that he include BX benchmarks, partially because that's what many of us use. The aging BX motherboard is still one of the fastest platforms on the market. However, we also did request he indicate that this was not truly a valid comparison because the BX system was overclocked. And he did so. I would have preferred a stronger warning about BX133, especially for the newbies, but he did keep his word.>>

I, too, like to see hardware tweaked to it's potential but there is a better place for the results to be displayed than in a review of a
competitors products. A seperate article dedicated to the overclocked BX board and other available platforms could have sufficed. Im sure Anand would'nt mind the increase in hits and revenue that additonal articles would bring.

He says he attracts over 2 million pairs of eyes. Im sure that overclocked BX users only represent a small fraction of that. He must be aware that throwing up benchmarking charts showing Intel perched on top would have some influence over the more casual observers to his site; the ones that can't motivate themselves to read 8-10 pages of a review.

Pictures speak a thousand words

 

[Thorn]

Listen, Anand doesn't give a rat's a$$ about Intel's money. And he's not going to fudge anything just because Intel wants him to, or for any other reason. I've watched the way he does reviews and business ever since the GeoCities days and there's not a more fair or impartial reviewer on the `Net, period. He's smart enough to figure out if someone's trying to manipulate him and he's ballsy enough to tell them where to go if they try. If he feels the P4 has some worth then he'll tell us, if he thinks it's crap he'll tell us. He'll put it up to the same scrutiny that he puts any other piece of hardware that shows up in his lab. After that, it's up to us to decide if we want to buy it. Questioning his character and integrity every time someone disagrees with him is just cheap and dirty.

 

[NOX]

<< He must be aware that throwing up benchmarking charts showing Intel perched on top would have some influence over the more casual observers to his site; the ones that can't motivate themselves to read 8-10 pages of a review. >>

Is there anything wrong with that? I would think if Anand did his review, and found this to be true, that he would post this in his review, just cuz you have a vested interest to see AMD succeed, don?t mean Intel is not a competitive alternative, or solution.

If people don?t want to read all 8-10 pages then that?s their lost, and seeing that?s how you feel, now I know why you don?t know what Anand publishes when he wrote his explanation why he was using SPEC.

 

[Bakwetu]

Amen Thorn!

As I recall it Anand asked us here at the board if we wanted him to include the overclocked bx benchmarks and a great majority said yes.

 

[awonisch]

Hi Anand,

this is a copy of a eMail i just sent to you:

I followed the discussion on SI and your forums about your recent including
of the SPEC Suite for CPU reviews. Let me first say that I always enjoyed
your reviews and with your recent response on this matter I enjoy them even
more. However, I believe there's a way you could give your user an even more
compelling information for evaluating CPU performance with the SPEC Suite.

We all know that Intel is heavily optimizing its compilers for SPEC CPU (AMD
is doing the same, of course, however without the great resources of Intel
it's far more difficult for them). But this Intel compiler is used in almost
no software available and its single purpose (with some minor exceptions)
is SPEC. Of course these optimized benchmarks are important and you should
keep them included in your reviews. But what about adding another test run
with an unoptimized compiler (e.g. from Microsoft)?

By doing this you could evaluate CPU performance on unoptimized application
which are still 99% of those that are used by your readers. This would take
another 24h hour SPEC test run but in my opinion it's worth the efforts. By
doing so you would give your readers another choice for their next system
purchase (i.e. how good is the desired cpu performing with their standard,
non-optimized applications) and you would distinguish your excellent,
in-depth reviews even more from the competition.

Maybe you can think about this and if you like the proposal you could even
include it in your upcoming P4 review. Since review systems are already out
you'll still have enough time to make several full SPEC benchmark runs.

Kind regards,

Andreas Wonisch

 

[Macro2]

Nox,
You said...How do you know that Intel knows this? Can you please back-up your statements with factual material, such as a link to a credible hardware review site that has done a thorough review of the P4.:

At an Intel P4 coming out party in Miami a couple weeks ago it was reported that Intel is saying the 1. Ghz P4 is basically 20% faster than a 1 Ghz Coppermine. That's from Intel. I expect less but Intel knows they are on watch and won't fudge as much as they like. That pretty much explains they know it's slow clock for clock.

You said...&quot;How can ?they? manipulate anything when Anand will be doing the benchmarks himself? What ?they? put on their website has nothing to do with Anands review. Anand has already stated he gets no stipulations from anyone, so back off!&quot;

They can manipulate a benchmark two ways. One is optimizing the compliers and two is by making the testers include the benchmarks that make the P4 look good. Trust me, it won't look good on a lot of benchmarks you're used to but if Intel can get a bunch of other benchmarks included that do make it look good...they can sway the overall report card. Kind of like getting C's and D's in Math, English, and Biology but countering them with A's in basket weaving, Phys ed., music appreciation, and sex education.
I doubt seriously that Anand gets no stipulations in this case but I like to be proven wrong. Might not just be Anand either. I don't want it to seem like I'm just picking on him.

Mac

 

[Macro2]

Thorn,
You said: &quot;Listen, Anand doesn't give a rat's a$$ about Intel's money. And he's not going to fudge anything just because Intel wants him to, or for any other reason&quot;

But he &quot;does&quot; give a rats arse about getting a test platform just like every test site.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a BIG ANAND fan. He's marvelous.
He can come out of this a hero. I hope he does...

Mac

 

[Thorn]

If Intel wouldn't give Anand a test sample of a product, someone else would (there's more P4 &quot;samples&quot; out in the engineering and reviewing community than you can shake a dead toucan at). I could've picked up a P4 1.5 and prototype mobo last week for $1,300 from a good friend of mine :Q. They have no power over him in that way... and besides, they can't handle the bad press of denying one of the biggest reviewing sites on the Net a test sample (especially not now). They're just gonna have to play ball like everyone else. If they knock it out of the park... good for them, but if they strike out... there's always next cycle.

 

[NOX]

<< At an Intel P4 coming out party in Miami a couple weeks ago it was reported that Intel is saying the 1. Ghz P4 is basically 20% faster than a 1 Ghz Coppermine. That's from Intel. I expect less but Intel knows they are on watch and won't fudge as much as they like. That pretty much explains they know it's slow clock for clock. >>

All I?m asking for is something factual statements, ?reported?, where was it reported? If Intel is suggesting it?s 20% faster, are you going to believe them? Did you believe then when they suggest Rambus was the future? Please post a link, with some factual information, regarding benchmarks showing that the P4 is slower ?clock for clock?. And if you think that explains they know it?s ?slow clock for clock?, then I?m sorry, but that suggest nothing to me.

<< They can manipulate a benchmark two ways. One is optimizing the compliers and two is by making the testers include the benchmarks that make the P4 look good. Trust me, it won't look good on a lot of benchmarks you're used to but if Intel can get a bunch of other benchmarks included that do make it look good...they can sway the overall report card. Kind of like getting C's and D's in Math, English, and Biology but countering them with A's in basket weaving, Phys ed., music appreciation, and sex education. I doubt seriously that Anand gets no stipulations in this case but I like to be proven wrong. Might not just be Anand either. I don't want it to seem like I'm just picking on him. >>

What is to suggest AMD couldn?t do the same? Nothing at all, AMD can easily optimized particular instruction to make their CPU look good also. Though what about when Anand does his Quake III benchmarks, will AMD and Intel optimize their CPU?s for that too? What about when Anand does his UT, Expandable, and Content Creation reviews, will Intel and AMD optimize their CPU?s for those particular benchmarks too?

I think you underestimate the power of Anands website, you are suggesting Anand has stipulations forced on to him by Intel, and that?s the only way he?ll received a test board. Even though Anand personally came out here to defend himself against that accusation, which by the way you have no such proof that it?s true! I?ll tell you why I believe it?s not true. Because the worst thing Intel can do at this point and time of business, it not to supply one of the most looked at, credible hardware review sites in the world, a production board for Anand to review. That would be the stupidest thing Intel could do, In fact, it?s my belief that Anand doesn?t even ask to review products, but rather the manufacturer insist that Anand review there products, because of the readers that Anands website generates per day!

 

[jhalada]

NOX,

What is to suggest AMD couldn?t do the same? Nothing at all, AMD can easily optimized particular instruction to make their CPU look good also.

I would prefer hardware vendors invest time and energy in improving their products' performance instead of various optimization and cheating SPEC schemes.

It is unlikely that you will ever benefit from the various optimization schemes because most software vendors use minimum or no optimizations when compiling their apps. No software vendor in his right mind would ever use the most aggressive optimizations that bring you the highest SPEC scores because the price you pay is a potential loss of stability of the app. It would require another round of Q/A for their apps, increasing time to market.

The heavily optimized SPEC scores have nothing to do with real life. If the hardware sites include them, they are in effect rewarding a vendor for PR over substance.

 

[maun]

<<Is there anything wrong with that? I would think if Anand did his review, and found this to be true, that he would post this in his review, just cuz you have a vested interest to see AMD succeed, don?t mean Intel is not a competitive alternative, or solution.>>

Your right. A 1.13ghz PIII on an overclocked BX133 is a competitive, alternative solution. Also an imaginary one.

 

[jhalada]

NOX,

AMD can easily optimized particular instruction to make their CPU look good also.

Maybe I misunderstood you originally. I have nothing about CPU vendors optimizing their CPUs to make their CPU perform well on certain apps. What I mind is optimizing just the compiler for SPEC benchmark, but making no improvements to CPU and how it performs on real world applications.

 

[NOX]

<< I would prefer hardware vendors invest time and energy in improving their products' performance instead of various optimization and cheating SPEC schemes.

It is unlikely that you will ever benefit from the various optimization schemes because most software vendors use minimum or no optimizations when compiling their apps. No software vendor in his right mind would ever use the most aggressive optimizations that bring you the highest SPEC scores because the price you pay is a potential loss of stability of the app. It would require another round of Q/A for their apps, increasing time to market.

The heavily optimized SPEC scores have nothing to do with real life. If the hardware sites include them, they are in effect rewarding a vendor for PR over substance. >>

Well?prefer is all you want, cuz vendors could care less what you think! Have you read any of my previous post? I said SPEC was not real world performance, but would show the chips (CPU?s) actually performance using each feature. If the P4 is optimized for this or not is up to the reviewer to say so, does it suggest Intel is doing harm in optimizing it?s complier, that?s for us to find out when a proper review is done. Is it proper to attack Anand for including SPEC, though both AMD, and Intel agrees to use their own config files for Anands SPEC benchmarks?NO! In past reviews I?ve read from Anand, there was never a time when he didn?t explain why a particular hardware performed the way it did. And I don?t expect that to change in the P4 review. Do you know for a fact AMD is not optimizing performance for SPEC?

<< Your right. A 1.13ghz PIII on an overclocked BX133 is a competitive, alternative solution. Also an imaginary one. >>

The only thing imaginary about it is that you?ve never done it before, but I know of people who have. When Anands includes a BX board running at 133MHz in his review, that is mainly for the propose of comparison, try reading the content, and you?re see he as explained that, he also explains that it?s a risk. But who are you to decide that for others? Let others choose, no novice IMO will try this so what?s you point? BTW, at the time when Anand did those reviews there was really no Intel solution which Anand could compare the older BX boards to the new boards, thus the BX at 133 was added for comparison.

<< Maybe I misunderstood you originally. I have nothing about CPU vendors optimizing their CPUs to make their CPU perform well on certain apps. What I mind is optimizing just the compiler for SPEC benchmark, but making no improvements to CPU and how it performs on real world applications. >>

Oh?contradicting?attack Intel?s strong point, which is probably their only strong point and AMD will still outperform them for the rest of the SPEC benchmarks, but we don?t know that right? Not until a review is done! Again, you guys need to stop assuming you know what others are doing, Intel I?m sure will be making improvements to its latest offering, the same way AMD will.

 

[Dennis Travis]

The one thing I am wondering about all of this is, What if the P4 DOES really beat the current AMD processor in every benchmark and Anand reports that? Will he be called a liar and paid off by Intel? I am not saying that the P4 will beat the Athlon in anything as without a real review on the final release of a P4 chip we don't really know for sure but what if it does? Will Anand be called a Sell Out for reporting the truth?

 

[maun]

<<But who are you to decide that for others? Let others choose, no novice IMO will try this so what?s you point?>>

Im not arguing the value of the information, just the location of it. When looking to overclock an AMD 800 Athlon, I didnt go searching in Intel 800 PIII reviews for the potential benchmarks.

The 1.13 PIII was'nt and is'nt an available, alternative solution, and won't be for months to come. Why must I consider it's benchmarks when looking for real world solutions?

There is a right place and time for all information. I just feel that Anand's places and times curiously cast a more favorable light on Intel.

 

[NOX]

Just face it, you guys come here with a malicious intent? You know that Anands has a lot of readers, readers who thrust Anand to provide them with a through review. And yet you come here trying to disrupt that intent, perception whatever you want to call it, Anand has answered you questions before his post here, yet you still incest to come here and call him a sell out. You don?t know what I?m talking about go here:

Anands e-mail you AMD investors

Check out the rest for amusement! It seems your own AMD investor buds think Anand using SPEC2000 is nothing to worry about, and I agree! Something else you?ll find interesting/funny is AMD also used SPECfp to show off it superior FPU! LOL?

AMD Investors Forum
AMD Investors Forum
AMD Investors Forum
AMD Investors Forum

<< The one thing I am wondering about all of this is, What if the P4 DOES really beat the current AMD processor in every benchmark and Anand reports that? Will he be called a liar and paid off by Intel? >>

That?s the purpose of this post IMO. The intent sucks, and I think it's sad approach to get your concerns heard.

 

[AngelOfDeath]

jhalada

<< Speaking of new members and looking at your profile, it seems that compared to me, you are the new member. And I happened to be a member of previous incarnations of Anand's forums for years. >>

What's your point???.

AoD