Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6072 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)



Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Your support is needed and is appreciated as is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.

Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
11 crawler(s) on-line.
 41 guest(s) on-line.
 0 member(s) on-line.

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 amigakit:  46 mins ago
 AMIGASYSTEM:  1 hr 12 mins ago
 kolla:  1 hr 18 mins ago
 pixie:  1 hr 21 mins ago
 zipper:  1 hr 47 mins ago
 Gunnar:  1 hr 48 mins ago
 PhantomInterrogative:  1 hr 53 mins ago
 Hypex:  1 hr 55 mins ago
 Amiboy:  2 hrs 4 mins ago
 clint:  2 hrs 5 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  General Technology (No Console Threads)
      /  Intel vs AMD rants
Register To Post

Intel vs AMD rants
Posted on 18-Oct-2021 21:13:08
#1 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3524
From: Germany

A continuation of this:
to avoid polluting that thread with another pile of rants.

@Hammer Quote:

Hammer wrote:

Let's see if you finally stop your ridiculous AMD propaganda.

It's Anandtech's article.

Mine as well, haven't you recognized it?
Your "AMD propaganda" attribution to me as a personal attack and would be treated as such.

So, you also want to change the vocabulary redefining the personal attack meaning.

I've already clarified why I've replied to you, which, if you haven't yet realized, is exactly the same that you did with my posts.
FYI, My cited Anandtech's 3DSmax 2.5 benchmarks didn't use "MAXScript".

Oh, really? I didn't notice it before...

You didn't factor in Pentium III-E's improvements. LOL.

You omitted the design changes for Pentium III-E.

Oh, really #2?

Maybe this wasn't the point? Maybe you need to read more carefully AND understand what people is writing, BEFORE replying with non-sense?

And if you still have problems understanding the reason of my replies, just tell me and I can draw a (very) simplified chart for you, eh!
Your cited benchmark lacks transparency.

I reveal you another secret: all benchmarks that I've reported come from AnandTech: the same site where you picked your results...
Pentium III-E has a FULL-SPEED L2 cache while K7 Athlon has a half-speed or one-third speed L2 cache until K7 Athlon Thunderbird (and K7 Duron).

Oh, yeah: so to make good comparisons for you, we need to wait for AMD to have a full-speed cache for its product.

Have you tried to contact Intel at the time, telling to wait for releasing the above Pentium III until AMD was able to catch-up?
As for Adobe benchmark with Intel optimizations, Intel Compiler caught cheating.

First, you have to prove that the Adobe benchmark was done cheating.

Second, Intel didn't cheat with its compiler. In fact, it's still working nowadays exactly in the same manner (more below).
Adobe 2D paint benchmark doesn't concern me when my interest is raytracing.

This is your usual cherry-picking.

BTW, you also presented GAME benchmarks in the same posts, contradicting the fact that your interest is ray-tracing.

Intel Caught Cheating, Gets a Slap on the Wrist 14 Years Later


It's a bit sad, almost funny when you read news like this. Intel has evidently fabricated benchmarks for their Pentium 4 processors back in 2000. The benchmarks were set against AMD's Thunderbird at the time. According to the official site of the class action lawsuit Intel is expected to pay $15. This payment will out go to each person who completed a purchase of a Pentium 4 processor between November 20th of 2000 and December 31st of 2001.

Which is NOT related to Intel's compiler. As usual, you search to web and insert on the discussion whatever you find of value for your holy war AKA AMD Propaganda.
an old FTC investigation from 2009-2010 that determined, not only did the FTC order intel to STOP doing exactly what they're doing today, but they call out Intel's Math Kernel Library by name (which can be found in the last page of the conclusion):


IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall not make any engineering or design change to a Relevant Product if that change (1) degrades the performance of a Relevant Product sold by a competitor of Respondent and (2) does not provide an actual benefit to the Relevant Product sold by Respondent, including without limitation any improvement in performance, operation, cost, manufacturability, reliability, compatibility, or ability to operate or enhance the operation of another product; provided, however, that any degradation of the performance of a competing product shall not itself be deemed to be a benefit to the Relevant Product sold by Respondent. Respondent shall have the burden of demonstrating that any engineering or design change at issue complies with Section V. of this Order.

The only way Intel can avoid guilt from this statement is by either proving that the version of the compiler Matlab uses is from before the settlement, or by falling under this exception:


Provided, however, that the fact that the degradation of performance of a Relevant Product sold by a competitor of Respondent arises from a “bug” or other inadvertent product defect in and of itself shall not constitute a violation of Section V.A.1. Respondent shall have the burden of demonstrating that any such degradation of performance was inadvertent.

In terms of the U.S. court of law, Intel was found guilty.
The legal battle
AMD have sued Intel for unfair competition at least since 2005, and the case has been settled in November 2009. This settlement deals with many issues of unfair competition, apparently including the Intel compiler. The settlement says:


Intel shall not include any Artificial Performance Impairment in any Intel product or require any Third Party to include an Artificial Performance Impairment in the Third Party's product. As used in this Section 2.3, "Artificial Performance Impairment" means an affirmative engineering or design action by Intel (but not a failure to act) that (i) degrades the performance or operation of a Specified AMD product, (ii) is not a consequence of an Intel Product Benefit and (iii) is made intentionally to degrade the performance or operation of a Specified AMD Product. For purposes of this Section 2.3, "Product Benefit" shall mean any benefit, advantage, or improvement in terms of performance, operation, price, cost, manufacturability, reliability, compatibility, or ability to operate or enhance the operation of another product.

In no circumstances shall this Section 2.3 impose or be construed to impose any obligation on Intel to (i) take any act that would provide a Product Benefit to any AMD or other non-Intel product, either when such AMD or non-Intel product is used alone or in combination with any other product, (ii) optimize any products for Specified AMD Products, or (iii) provide any technical information, documents, or know how to AMD.

This looks like a victory for AMD. If we read "any Intel product" as Intel's compilers and function libraries, "any Third Party" as programmers using these compilers and libraries, and "Artificial Performance Impairment" as the CPU dispatcher checking the vendor ID string; then the settlement puts an obligation on Intel to change their CPU dispatcher.

As you usually you are NOT able to understand even the things you report yourself.

NO, absolutely NO: Intel was NOT obligated to change its CPU dispatcher! Everything is clear on the above Section 2.3. But NOT to you, of course, because you're systematically showing to have problems understanding statements which are even written in your mother language...
I will certainly check the next version of Intel's compiler and libraries to see if they have done so

As I've said before, NOTHING changed: Intel's compilers are STILL working EXACTLY on the same way.

And you know why? Because they do like an optimizing compiler SHOULD work. Of course, if you have the bare minimum idea on how a (specific: I give you this hing) processor works, and how a compiler generates optimized code for it.

You can better spend your time trying to understand the settlement, instead.
or they have found a loophole in the settlement.

There's no loophole. And nothing was hidden. The reason is crystal clear on the above Section 2.3.

But you have a different problem: your aren't able to understand it, and I doubt that you'll ever be able to get it, since you've a history on this forum about misunderstanding writings. So, you've a serious problem on your own.
Interestingly, this is not the end of the story. Only about one month after the AMD/Intel settlement, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint against Intel. The accusations in the FTC complaint are unusually strong:

Intel sought to undercut the performance advantage of non-Intel x86 CPUs relative to Intel x86 CPUs when it redesigned and distributed software products, such as compilers and libraries.

To the public, OEMs, ISVs, and benchmarking organizations, the slower performance of non-Intel CPUs on Intel-compiled software applications appeared to be caused by the non-Intel CPUs rather than the Intel software. Intel failed to disclose the effects of the changes it made to its software in or about 2003 and later to its customers or the public. Intel also disseminated false or misleading documentation about its compiler and libraries. Intel represented to ISVs, OEMs, benchmarking organizations, and the public that programs inherently performed better on Intel CPUs than on competing CPUs. In truth and in fact, many differences were due largely or entirely to the Intel software. Intel's misleading or false statements and omissions about the performance of its software were material to ISVs, OEMs, benchmarking organizations, and the public in their purchase or use of CPUs. Therefore, Intel's representations that programs inherently performed better on Intel CPUs than on competing CPUs were, and are, false or misleading. Intel's failure to disclose that the differences were due largely to the Intel software, in light of the representations made, was, and is, a deceptive practice. Moreover, those misrepresentations and omissions were likely to harm the reputation of other x86 CPUs companies, and harmed competition.
Some ISVs requested information from Intel concerning the apparent variation in performance of identical software run on Intel and non-Intel CPUs. In response to such requests, on numerous occasions, Intel misrepresented, expressly or by implication, the source of the problem and whether it could be solved.
Intel's software design changes slowed the performance of non-Intel x86 CPUs and had no sufficiently justifiable technological benefit. Intel's deceptive conduct deprived consumers of an informed choice between Intel chips and rival chips, and between Intel software and rival software, and raised rivals' costs of competing in the relevant CPU markets. The loss of performance caused by the Intel compiler and libraries also directly harmed consumers that used non-Intel x86 CPUs.

The remedy that the FTC asks for is also quite farreaching:

Requiring that, with respect to those Intel customers that purchased from Intel a software compiler that had or has the design or effect of impairing the actual or apparent performance of microprocessors not manufactured by Intel ("Defective Compiler"), as described in the Complaint:

Intel provide them, at no additional charge, a substitute compiler that is not a Defective Compiler;
Intel compensate them for the cost of recompiling the software they had compiled on the Defective Compiler and of substituting, and distributing to their own customers, the recompiled software for software compiled on a Defective Compiler; and
Intel give public notice and warning, in a manner likely to be communicated to persons that have purchased software compiled on Defective Compilers purchased from Intel, of the possible need to replace that software.

The settlement compensates AMD, but not VIA and other microprocessor vendors, and not the customers who have been harmed by insufficient competition and by the "defective" software produced with the Intel compiler.

What was classified as "defective" is only related to the effects, and not how the compiler works.

In fact, and as I've already said, Intel's compilers are still working exactly as in the past: NOTHING changed from this PoV.

It was SOMETHING ELSE which changed (and that's the reason why Intel was NOT accused anymore by the FTC or other agencies like that), and that you can find, again, the reason on what you've reported just above about this case.

The problem is, of course, the usual: you should understand the writings (which should be the case, in theory, since it's stuff that YOU reported, and not me). But you've your problems here...
Your "Let's see if you finally stop your ridiculous AMD propaganda" flame war can f**koff.

Oh, yeah. You continue to derail the discussion with new things, desperately seeking on the web something which puts Intel in the dark light, but you don't even understand what you report.

Why you didn't picked AMD? Simple: because its processors sucked compared to the PentiumPro:

Your AMD K6 benchmark is a RED HERRING when K6 is not part of my argument when K6's X87 FPU is NOT pipelined.

Pentium Pro's X87 FPU is partly pipelined! LOL.

Ah, yes. And who decided that the K6 and the Pentium Pro shouldn't compared? You? And who are you?

As I've said before, have you considered telling Intel to delay releasing its products until AMD can catch-up with its own?
Since you argued against K6,

With graphics card.

For software render.

For transparency, AMD K6-III has 3DNow 64 bit SIMD and Quake II supports 3D Now (pack math dual FP32/INT32, pack math INT8, and INT16).

Ah, Quake II: a very well known RAYTRACING APPLICATION. The (only) ones which you're interested, according to you.

Again, you changed the cards on the table and reported completely different benchmarks for completely different products: what a new thing!!!
You're a hypocrite when you attached "AMD propaganda" attribution to me.

Hypocrite? For showing how you continue to cherry-pick what you like to make AMD in good shape and Intel in bad shape?

Guess what: this is your AMD propaganda!
For the record, I didn't buy AMD K6 when my X86 CPU was an Intel Pentium II and I can still prove I owned this PC since I stored this PC in my garage.

Hint: my loyalty is my own self-interest, NOT AMD nor Intel.

AMD K7 Athlon's 3D Now has 64-bit FADD units and 64-bit FMUL units.
Intel Pentium III's SSE has 64-bit FADD and 64-bit FMUL units.
AMD K7 Athlon XP's SSE has 64-bit FADD units and 64-bit FMUL units.

AMD K8 Athlon 64's SSE has 128-bit FADD units and 64-bit FMUL units.
Intel Core 2's SSE has 128-bit FADD and 128-bit FMUL units.

PowerPC Altivec SIMD was 128-bit hardware from the start but has other issues for Quake III e.g. GPR to SIMD register transfers hits the frontside bus and C++ function (stack) performance issues.

PS; I have budgeted and plan to buy Intel Alderlake Core i9's 8C+8c (24 threads) or 8C+4c (20 threads) to replace my Core i9-9900K (8C/16T) PC. You are wrong to attribute "AMD propaganda" to me.

"It's not true that I don't like gays: I've some friends which are gays!"

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Re: Intel vs AMD rants
Posted on 18-Oct-2021 21:23:49
#2 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3524
From: Germany

@Srtest Quote:

Srtest wrote:

Hammer pretty much exposed and owned your ass.

This is only happening on your wet dreams.

I've already replied on the other thread, and now also on this one: enjoy!
Intel tried its best to monopolize the market just like its sister on the software side but failed. First they failed from an all-around performance job and then when they had got their little head start with the core line of products, AMD soon responded with better pricing and reading the needs and understanding that the old laws of advancement no longer apply. I've been using a Ryzen 5 six core for about the longevity of it being out and I have no motivation to replace it.

And... who cares?
For most of its existence Intel had no real competition

Right: the only true thing that you reported, and which is relevant.
and when it did it resorted to dirty tactics.

False, history at the hands. In fact, the anti-competitive practices are related only on specific periods of time.
Then finally when they did something right (probably happened by accident)

Oh, sure. Because at Intel were working only a bunch of idiots.

Again, those are your wet dreams...
they got stuck in the past as far as what peeps today are willing to spend and what are the midrange needs of users.

And... how cares?
Go do a better job trying to lurk over this site and find whatever tidbit you can to support your obsessed posting.

Again, those are your wet dreams.

The reality is that you don't write posts from long time, but now you came-up on the previous trade and you find disturbing what I've written about your beloved OS4.
So, you took the chance of my diatribe with Hammer to try to satisfy your violated ego by throwing me some brown stuff.

Poor zealot: try again the joke with someone which is on par with you, with the same IQ level...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 was originally founded by David Doyle