Need help, w/ building my computer.

[dwchang]

I was just pointing out that larger input sizes can sometimes give a better picture of an algorithm's performance.

But as Kalium stated, benchmarks should benchmark realistic things that a consumer will actually do. Basing it on something unrealistic and saying that this product is the best FOR THE CONSUMER is outright lying. That was what the entire case was about and I believe they settled (i.e. Intel -> $$$ -> people). That seems to be the current trend for both Intel and Microsoft.

Perhaps I should go find that article. This one isn't even the most ludicrous. Then again, the most ludicrous thing is the fact the benchmark is done by Intel people. I believe we went to court over and now have ONE AMD person on the 20+ person board that decides these things.

BTW in case someone finds out I'm wrong, it *MAY* have been SysMark and not PCMark. Either way, my point is you shouldn't trust benchmarks. Sadly the next question is "what should I trust?" and sadly unless you work in the industry or have a degree in this, sadly...nothing. Crappy ain't it?

[Scintilla]

Either way, my point is you shouldn't trust benchmarks. Sadly the next question is "what should I trust?" and sadly unless you work in the industry or have a degree in this, sadly... <b>nothing.</b>

What about <i>you?</i>

[dwchang]

Either way, my point is you shouldn't trust benchmarks. Sadly the next question is "what should I trust?" and sadly unless you work in the industry or have a degree in this, sadly... <b>nothing.</b>

What about <i>you?</i>

I thought we already went over this . I have a bachelor's degree in Computer Engineering and work for AMD as an engineer. Obviously biased, but at the same time, I'd like to think I work for the lesser or two evils .

[trythil]

Either way, my point is you shouldn't trust benchmarks. Sadly the next question is "what should I trust?" and sadly unless you work in the industry or have a degree in this, sadly... <b>nothing.</b>

What about <i>you?</i>

I thought we already went over this . I have a bachelor's degree in Computer Engineering and work for AMD as an engineer. Obviously biased, but at the same time, I'd like to think I work for the lesser or two evils .

So long as you touch x86, you are a bearer of evil.

[dwchang]

Either way, my point is you shouldn't trust benchmarks. Sadly the next question is "what should I trust?" and sadly unless you work in the industry or have a degree in this, sadly... <b>nothing.</b>

What about <i>you?</i>

I thought we already went over this . I have a bachelor's degree in Computer Engineering and work for AMD as an engineer. Obviously biased, but at the same time, I'd like to think I work for the lesser or two evils .

So long as you touch x86, you are a bearer of evil.

This is coming from Mr. MIPS the obsolete?

[Mr Pilkington]

....and work for AMD as an engineer....

And intel is the devil.


I say go with the VIA C3

[Zarxrax]

What's wrong with tomshardware? I mean they aren't biased against AMD or anything... In fact its the site that convinced me to buy an AMD processor in my older system, 600mhz athlon. The tests they perform seem accurate. Whats the problem?

Are you being serious?

Within our industry everyone knows that Tom is a big Intel fanboy and to put it in "non-technical terms"...sucks their dicks.

Well I don't know about athlon 64 stuff, but I got proof here that back in the day, Tom's Hardware published data that said Athlons seriously kicked Intel's ass: http://www4.tomshardware.com/cpu/19990823/index.html

And as far as benchmarks go, i could care less about bullshit "benchmarking programs"... i don't even look at those scores. I likewise dont look at stuff like excel or autocad or whatever. I look at the stuff that pertains to me. Video encoding, audio encoding, 3d rendering, games (though I don't play games anymore I still like those benchmarks for some reason :p).

[dwchang]

What's wrong with tomshardware? I mean they aren't biased against AMD or anything... In fact its the site that convinced me to buy an AMD processor in my older system, 600mhz athlon. The tests they perform seem accurate. Whats the problem?

Are you being serious?

Within our industry everyone knows that Tom is a big Intel fanboy and to put it in "non-technical terms"...sucks their dicks.

Well I don't know about athlon 64 stuff, but I got proof here that back in the day, Tom's Hardware published data that said Athlons seriously kicked Intel's ass: http://www4.tomshardware.com/cpu/19990823/index.html

And as far as benchmarks go, i could care less about bullshit "benchmarking programs"... i don't even look at those scores. I likewise dont look at stuff like excel or autocad or whatever. I look at the stuff that pertains to me. Video encoding, audio encoding, 3d rendering, games (though I don't play games anymore I still like those benchmarks for some reason :p).

Dude this is durnig the PIII days . This is nearly 4 years old . Things are different now.

And I'm somewhat happy to see that you sorta judge things yourself. Most consumers *should* try and just see for themselves, but you must admit that most usually just read those benchmarks and dont' question.

[madmag9999]

what is a program i could run to run benchmarks on my 2 comps. i have a p4 and a amd 2800+ and id like to see the differences. i went on what everyone was telling me that athlon is better and dicieded to get one for my new comp and it dose seem to be better then the p4 but id still like to run some benchmarks and see for myself

[dwchang]

what is a program i could run to run benchmarks on my 2 comps. i have a p4 and a amd 2800+ and id like to see the differences. i went on what everyone was telling me that athlon is better and dicieded to get one for my new comp and it dose seem to be better then the p4 but id still like to run some benchmarks and see for myself

You could download stuff like Sysmark, PCmark and SiSandra. Just google for them. However, again, I warn you that such things aren't an accurate indicator of performance as I already explained.