Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 22 of 22

Thread: AMD is working on a new speed testing method




  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    24

    Default

    There is a degree of manipulation to be sure. The most glaring one is Intel providing the tech know-how to NewTek in development of Lightwave's software to implement SSE2 instructions.

    Then touting it in the marketing campaigns as a demonstration of the P4's superior architecture.

    Clearly that crosses the line. The same is true with their providing tech know-how to BAPCO if the allegations prove to be true. Although the allegations here are much more serious. This is a clear case of fraud, if proven true.

    Creating proprietary instructions sets for people to code and implement on their own is one thing, but actually providing Intel engineers and programmers to "assist" a major third party software company is another.

    I would say this would fall under the rubric of engaging in anti-competive practices. It is certainly unethical and as we may well see in the class action lawsuit, it may be proven fraudalent.

    Personally, I've always hated the notion of proprietary instruction sets because it creates a lot of headaches in the software development community. Coding for the benefit of only one CPU architecture is counterproductive.

    Just when Intel finally agrees to allow AMD to license SSE2 for their K8 series, they'll most likely introduce another implementation of "instruction sets" into the mix: SSE3.

    Again, this is sad to me. I wish software developers would shun such behavior and refuse to code with proprietary instruction sets. To me it seems to be a lame crutch to support a weak CPU architecture.

    Better yet, I wish consumers would also shun software companies that openly tout the benefits of their software using proprietary instruction sets.

    If Intel had more confidence in their product they would obviously level the playing field. Then the consumer could definitely determine which CPU architecture was superior in performance given the tasks assigned.

    Each architecture has its strengths and weakness. Just be honest about where your strenths are in the marketplace, and try and correct your known weakness in the next revision. But alas, the corporate mentality of today doesn't allow for such noble sentiments. I'm affraid someone expressing such views would be termed naive.

    Unfortunately, I'm way too cynical to be naive. But it doesn't remove from me my sense of values to know right from wrong.

    Again I don't want to sound preachy. That is not my intention. I do think Intel's implementation of "Northwood" is pretty good. But on the meter of judging which company is more ethical than the other, I would say Intel is definitely more "shady" in their conduct. That is just my humble little opinion.

    Sigh, please this is not intended to start a flame....although, I know there are people who definitely have some strong opinions on this topic.

    As aways, the best consumer is an informed one. Research your intended product well and buy the one that provides the best price/performance and features for your needs. If you do that, you'll always be content with you purchase.

    And the man finally steps down off his soap box.....:o

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    0

    Default

    At the least it would be fair to let everyone use those instruction sets so that the playing field is more level.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •