back to article AMD accuses Intel of VW-like results fudging

AMD has revived one of the oldest feuds in the industry, once again accusing Intel of fudging benchmark results and comparing Chipzilla's practices to VW's falsified diesel engine emissions tests. The world's other x86 booster has slung slings, arrows and FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) at Intel for more than a decade over …

  1. PNGuinn
    Mushroom

    Lawyers at dawn ...

    Yup, with the ginoormous growth in the x86 market in the last couple of years both companies can really afford this...

    (Ok, Intel more than AMD I know, but they're not picking the fight.)

    How long before China has either a good enough x86 clone or something better to blow both their smelly socks off?

    Look out of the window, guys - Slurp down the road is running out of toes to shoot and 'nix is somewhat more platform agnostic.

    We live in interesting times.

    1. mi1400

      Re: Lawyers at dawn ...

      Would AMD also show the benchmarks' bar graphs they used to magnify only at peaks to bluff users they are massively ahead in that benchmark. for example say Intel benchmark bar was 10 value and AMD was 10.1 ... what AMD doing was chop/crop that benchmark picture upto value of say 9 ... then zooming at remaining 1 and 1.1 portion that bar's peak which on computer screen looked 0.1 difference quite far behind unless he focuses on small numbers on far side. eat that bitch. I am no fan Intel either. all this text is just shake AMD from sleep and drag them from collar on road and tell them most people are not short sighted/termed-memory ... many remember the history. So stop pretending victimized.

      In response to a news "Double blow for AMD as CPU brainiac jumps ship to rival Nvidia"

      What good does he or any of his pals has ever done while feeding at AMD !?! they are all intel's slaves and orphans finding temporary shelters and orphanages here and their.. what good this guy or his ancestors/cousins or other orphans at AMD have done or are doing to break free from enslavements or even somewhat innovate over Intel's ultrabook say making hyperbook. lemme quote the quickest story first and lengthier one next...

      FIRST:

      AMD is delivering graphics via MXM modules

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_PCI_Express_Module

      MXM is no longer supplied freely by Nvidia but it is controlled by the MXM-SIG controlled by Nvidia. Only corporate clients are granted access to the standard. The MXM 2.1 specification is widely available

      I have been reading on techsites who read between the lines that MXM is NVidia controlled and monopolised architecture... why is AMD sticking to it and is the reason that most of the laptops in world are fitted with nVidia instead AMD... dont know why they always something to fuck them .. sometime they seems to have developed taste for breadcrums from floor (my comments here http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2015/09/20/jim_keller_quits_amd/) and sometimes they seem to have developed psychological disease of self-inflicting-harm like sticking to MXM knowing they are being stabbed on this.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-harm

      SECOND:

      AMD ... Intel's intentionally brewed "Anticompetitiveness Manipulation Decoy"

      An excerpt from my Dec 2, 2007 post...

      I am personally an AMD Fanatic but AMD's lately Apple like reasoning have made me so disappointed, like ... Intel-like-Quadsicore approach is not an "Angelic" approach (recently Intel has spoken out on record that it was near impossible for AMD to solder two X2 like Intel beacuse of integrated HyperTransport etc) ... then AMD's stance that Phenom is also not an Angelic-way to empower notebooks. I usyually say AMD has developed taste for eating breadcrumbs from the floor. and perhaps Intel-AMD's 1999 secret agrement is hint/factor of why SSE4a lags SSE4.1 hence keeping AMD walking leaning-head behind Intel and thrusting ancient 4000+ X2 bases notebooks on Enthusiasts, this also confirmed their TDP charm is broken and was a myth. Intel has silently opened a new front in notebooks and AMD is still not getting out of Angel-ic/Apple-ish phobia. Rememebr when AMD had upper hand in Anthlons Vs Pentiums they put a patetion (Anthlons Pentiums Duel) on thier site for fans to sign in convincing Intel to show up with its Pentiums to get humiliated infront of whole world and the Flash video on amd.com did just that, now when the tables are turned Intel has not posted such patetion thing to call for it fans join the AMD-humiliation competition. I think we should abandon fanfare and become wise-customers thinking from brain not heart.

      P.S:

      Does anyone remember the AMD's MegaHertzigovinia (MegaHz-igovinia) video pun to Intel too ... anyone share an article on secret enslavement agreement where by AMD is bound to keep its SSE throttled behind Intel's SSE or was it related to floating point calculation throttling !?! ... anyway it is the true face of AMD and just an Intel's Decoy to keep anti-competitive monitoring courts shut up .. saying look we have shared the patents satisfying FRAND clauses and camera focuses AMD in court's corner where It's eating something from floor with diaper all filled with pee and feces .. looking toward Intel with all the gratitude to let it live no matter on these breadcrumbs.

      1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

        Re: Lawyers at dawn ...

        "Would AMD also show the benchmarks' bar graphs they used to magnify only at peaks to bluff users they are massively ahead in that benchmark."

        That's just bog standard industry fare.

        If you don't check the axis markup, then you shouldn't even look at graphs.

  2. thames
    Boffin

    It's not just AMD saying there's a problem.

    It's interesting that they mentioned PCMark. A few years ago they themselves were found to have been favouring Intel in their benchmark, until Arstechnica did some detailed tests and the PCMark people ended up with egg all over their faces and had to come out with a new benchmark.

    In that instance the author was testing a new VIA CPU against Intel and AMD. The interesting thing about that new VIA CPU was that the CPU ID register was writeable, not read only. When they changed the CPU ID from "CentaurHauls" to "AuthenticAMD", the benchmark's performance magically jumped by 10%. When they changed it to "GenuineIntel" it jumped by 47.4%. That's running the same benchmark on the same hardware, but just changing the CPU ID register. Fascinating, isn't it?

    It turns out that a lot of companies used Intel's compiler, and that compiler produced code that did different things depending upon the brand of CPU it found.

    The FTC took Intel to court, and said in their complaint that

    https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/091216intelcmpt.pdf

    "Intel ... used deceptive practices to leave the impression that AMD or Via products did not perform as well as they actually did."

    and that

    "Intel redesigned its compiler and library software in or about 2003 to reduce the performance of competing CPUs. Many of Intel’s design changes to its software had no legitimate technical benefit and were made only to reduce the performance of competing CPUs relative to Intel’s CPUs."

    and that:

    "Intel failed to disclose material information about the effects of its redesigned compiler on the performance of non-Intel CPUs. Intel expressly or by implication falsely misrepresented that industry benchmarks reflected the performance of its CPUs relative to its competitors’ products."

    So, it's not just AMD that has been saying Intel has been up to some very dubious things with benchmarks.

    1. frank ly

      Re: It's not just AMD saying there's a problem.

      If I download and install/run a .msi or .exe file, doesn't the same binary code run regardless of whether I have an Intel or AMD CPU? So does this only affect performance if I compile my own benchmarks?

      1. phil dude
        FAIL

        Re: It's not just AMD saying there's a problem.

        I really don't know about compiled code. But some recent digging in the DSDT on a few machines I have access to , make me wonder how many things are different on different platforms. With all the binary blobs and BIOS being opaque, I don't trust anything that much...do you?

        P.

        --cut here--

        OSYS = 0x07D2

        If (CondRefOf (_OSI, Local0))

        {

        If (_OSI ("Linux"))

        {

        OSYS = 0x07D2

        }

        If (_OSI ("Windows 2001"))

        {

        OSYS = 0x07D1

        }

        --cut here--

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It's not just AMD saying there's a problem.

        No and No.

        Most modern compilers will generate multiple versions of the same routine and place them in the same binary. A different version of the code will execute depending on the specific run-time conditions (e.g. two memory areas being aliased, or a particular parameter having a special value, or an advantageous CPU feature being present).

        This multi-versioning is generally of benefit to the user, as it allows the most efficient binary code to be used, even if it relies on conditions which cannot be proven/guaranteed at the code generation time.

        However, what Intel does in their compiler (or at least used to do up to four years ago, which was the last time I had to fix this for a customer) is something rather different. *Before* checking for a specific CPU feature being present, they'd check for a CPU being Intel-branded. If it is not, they'd end up picking a code path not using the more advanced feature fully - even if it is present and fully compatible.

        Excising the checks (and they are/were everywhere in Intel compiler runtime) would sometimes magically speed-up numerically-intensive code by a factor of 2x. That's a major aggravation, especially if you are have to support both Intel and AMD hardware.

        1. ksb1972

          Re: It's not just AMD saying there's a problem.

          Having never really programmed for Windows (unless you count a bit of VBA or a smallish ASP.net VB app), I thought most people used something like Visual Studio to write Windows programs?

          And if so, does Intel submit compiler 'modules' or plug-ins optimised for their own chips that something like VS would use?

          If so, you can hardly blame Intel for not optimising their plug-ins for AMD chips! That's something AMD should be doing by submitting their own 'plug-ins'.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: It's not just AMD saying there's a problem. @ksb1972

            Unlike AC above, I've only ever used GCC, and only touched MS C++ Compiler by a 2 meter stick for my dissertation!

            Basically, writing readable, maintainable and portable code can result in a very unoptimized code that doesn't take advantage of any of the hardware features available. The compiler will attempt to optimize your code and utilize the hardware features. As an example, those features can be in the form of utilizing the SIMD function!

            This way, if your program could benefit from SIMD and the compiler correctly utilize it, you will see a massive improvement in performance when comparing the unoptimized code to the optimized code. If the unoptimized code was running on a much faster processor, the optimized code that utilizes SIMD would still be able to match it or even outperform it!

            From what I've read, Intel's optimized compiler is highly intelligent when it comes to optimizing the code, which is why developers love it! But it will, intentionally, not utilize the hardware feature available on AMD's processors despite the processor having those feature. Keep in mind that AMD is paying for the licenses to use those feature and make them compatible with Intel's! At the very least, that how things were few years ago.

            Edit: forgive my EngRish, it isn't my first language.

            1. PeteA
              Thumb Up

              Re: It's not just AMD saying there's a problem. @ksb1972

              You EngRish better much than many natives write :)

            2. CarbonLifeForm

              Re: It's not just AMD saying there's a problem. @ksb1972

              There are additional tricks you can pull... if you use the Intel compiler, there was a situation a few years ago where there were multiple flags, all spelled similarly, all of which purportedly enabled AVX instructions. And there were different preambles to these flags, depending on whether the target chip was Intel or AMD.

              As it turns out, a client I was working with looked at the assembly code produced and realized that depending on the AVX flag you threw, sometimes the resulting assembly code would be mysteriously free of AVX instructions. I was both mortified that Intel did this, and embarrassed that I hadn't thought of it.

              Guess which AVX flag was publicized in Intel's Developer zone? The one that produced *no AVX instructions on an AMD chip*. Why?

              I can only speculate :-), but when you are a company evaluating AMD chips and using the Intel compiler, you will likely look at the documentation, throw the switch and - oh look, AMD slow. Oh look, Intel fast. And plausible deniability obtains, because there *are* flags which work for both.

              "Look how much faster Intel is. We really should stay with best of breed."

          2. James 51

            Re: It's not just AMD saying there's a problem.

            A better analogy would be if you were on a toll road and the company that owned the road had a deal with one car manufacturer. If you had the right kind of car you were directed into the 70mph lane. Everyone else is forced into a lane limited to 60mph even if their car can do 70mph (and they have to pay the same toll).

          3. Paul Shirley

            Re: It's not just AMD saying there's a problem.

            ksb1972 " I thought most people used something like Visual Studio to write Windows programs?"

            Yes, but VC++ and presumably other MS compilers are always far behind in feature support. Want to use the half<->real SSE support in recent processors? Till this year only the XBox1 VC compiler supported them and even then you have to do it manually with your own feature detection. The Intel compiler does it all for you, at the cost of deliberately favouring Intel. I'm sure AMD would do the same given the chance. And it's wrong whoever does it.

      3. Mage Silver badge

        Re: It's not just AMD saying there's a problem.

        The looking at CPU ID and then alternate blocks of code can be added by the compiler.

        You're thinking of macros in source.

  3. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

    So that's where the soot in my box is coming from?

  4. Paul Shirley

    were the Zen benchmarks that disappointing?

    Zen is due and AMD bring this up again? I wonder just how poorly the benchmarks came out.

    If anyone needed reminding Zen is pure catchup (and not even expected to quite catch Intel) this is probably the proof, suddenly they have a desperate need to get compiler support parity to make Zen look OKish.

    It's sad, looks like they've blown the high end completely. A new socket design means no cheap upgrade for us AMD fans and the cost of switching to Intel is suddenly easier to accept.

  5. ad47uk

    I like AMD stuff and I have been using their CPUs more or less since I started with PCs around 1996, I had a Cyrix on my first PC, Amigas before that.

    I know that it seems to be the fashion to blow off AMD and suck up to Intel and I am not going to deny that Intel chips are better, because they have improved their chips over the years and sadly AMD seems to have come to a stop.

    My AMD FX 8350 eight core chip which I got last year is old technology, I know that and the chipset my board uses is at least 5 years old, but the machine still works well and for video editing using all eight cores and the GPU it flies.

    I would love AMD to update their chips and their chipsets and not just the APUs.

    I will stick with AMD as to be honest of all the years I have been using them I only had one failure and that was my own fault, I did not make sure the heatsink was on correctly and even then AMD said they would replace the chip.

    1. James 51

      They have a new chipset alone with new CPUs/APUs coming out later this year. I've been holding off upgrading my computer for that.

    2. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

      All my "desktop" PCs are AMD, since I always liked their price/performance ratio, plus the fact that they usually supply pretty decent upgradability (faster CPUs for older sockets). My main rig is a former dual core Phenom, running 4 cores thanks to ASUS.

      I went with AMD when Pentium 4 was current (nough said).

      For laptops Intel has been fine, as they seem to offer good processing/watt, and upgradability is less of an issue. Although their built in graphics used to be useless for 3D, they are now pretty good.

    3. Wade Burchette

      I am very interested to see if the AMD Zen has up its sleeve. Right now, for desktops I would only go with Intel. But for a laptop, I would only go with the AMD A-8000 (Carrizo) series. The reason is I don't need the extra performance of Intel on a laptop. What the AMD Carrizo does well is 4K HEVC decoding and gaming, two things I rather have in a laptop.

      We need both AMD and Intel in the CPU space. We need both AMD and NVidia for video cards. Competition means lower prices and better quality. I am also very interested in the next generation of AMD and NVidia video cards. It looks like both will have a giant leap forward in quality.

    4. jason 7

      @ad47uk Hey I hear you. Old kit is not to be thrown on the scrap heap. I'm running a 2007 spec dual Xeon system and that runs a WPrime 210 benchmark in 6.7 seconds.

      The only chip I've had through my hands recently to gain any great difference is the £850 8/16 core Intel i7 5960X that does it in 4 seconds.

      You can pick up the Xeons I have for about £30 each on Ebay. AMD or Intel? Doesnt really matter in most cases. The software just isn't there to tax the kit in most cases.

  6. Cuddles

    Different benchmarks are different

    "The pair reckon the SYSmark 2014 shows a 50 per cent gap between AMD and Chipzilla machines, but the same machines running Futuremark's PCMark8 tests showed only a seven per cent gap.

    In SYSmark, Salinas claims “there is an excessive[ly] high amount of CPU tasking being done – that is, that the benchmark is only evaluating the CPU side of the system.

    PCMark8, on the other hand, has “activity going on on the CPU, GPU and video sub-components of the system”, he said."

    In other words, the benchmarks test different aspects of a system, and therefore unsurprisingly give different results. As it happens, it appears that a benchmarks focussed on CPU performance says that AMD are crap compared to Intel, while a benchmark comparing whole systems in which the CPU is only a portion of the total computing power has less difference when the only difference is the CPUs. Not exactly something anyone should be surprised about, and I think this complaint portrays AMD in a much worse light than Intel - they're basically upset that their CPUs aren't as good and are desperately looking for someone to blame.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Different benchmarks are different

      You might actually believe that AMD products are seriously lacking if you didn't know the benchmark was intended to deceive consumers. If you go into the benchmark script and remove the processor I.D. code that looks to see if the processor is AMD or Intel, all of a sudden the AMD processor scores far better than when the system determines the processor brand before conducting the test. That is fraud and intent to make Intel processors look like they perform better than they actually do perform real world. This is precisely why those who intentionally dupe the public should be held accountable.

      1. CarbonLifeForm

        Re: Different benchmarks are different

        Yup. The fudged results are used to influence economic decisions, and not just the public's. These benchmarks are used by OEMs to determine whether to build a machine around the latest Intel or AMD offering too. Fudging the results means a slightly less fast, but considerably cheaper chip, will be bypassed for an overpriced Intel chip at design time.

        That means hundreds of thousands of laptops using one chip or the other, based on falsified results, and a likely reduced profit margin for the OEM.

        The key point is - AMD does not allege that they were faster before and the test was lying about it. Their position is realistic. They admit they are slower. They doubtless will allege however that the test so exaggerated Intel's performance vs AMD that it allowed Intel to fraudulently obtain OEM business and maintain a higher price point than they would've had they been forced to compete.

  7. I Like Heckling Silver badge

    AMD = Better VFM

    I had a few Intel PC's... from a 386 with turbo, right up to the PII Slot A. After that I started building my own and went with AMD because it was better value for money... At the time they were beating Intel, and my old T-Bird 1.2ghz would happily run @1.5Ghz. Over the years I continued with AMD and overclocking until around 2010... When I built a crossfire graphics setup with a Phenom II X4 BE... When I replaced that system 4yrs later I went with a single graphics card and a 6 core FX... I stopped overclocking as it no longer seemed worth it. I wasn't bothered about a few extra FPS in games.

    I'm due a motherboard upgrade this year (was the one item I skimped on in the rebuild), so I'll see what they bring out and if it's AM3+ compatible. If so, I'll get a decent MB and upgrade the CPU the following year. Then it's just a question of adding a second video card again and I'll be good for 4K gaming for years to come.

    1. Sgt_Oddball

      Re: AMD = Better VFM

      I used to think the same (had a phenom II x2 be running all 4 cores) and had a healthy 1ghz overclock on it.

      But 3 years ago I moved to an i5 2500k.. It's still in my system and still managing a 1.9ghz overclock day in day out on air (since it killed my aio water-cooled). Between the two there's just no comparison the system absolutely flies and still does after 3 years so I'd say I've had very good value for money.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: AMD = Better VFM

      There won't be any new AM3+ CPUs after Zen is fully launched. AMD will clear the channel because Zen is so much better than current FX model CPUs. You'll need to upgrade to an AM4 mobo to use Zen but that socket will be usable for three full generations or more of AMD discrete processors starting with Zen, then Zen+, etc. The only one likely to be disappointed in Zen is Intel as they will no longer be able to exploit consumers.

  8. RonWheeler

    APUs

    AMD moaning that their failed 'APU' strategy doesn't work.

    Non gamers - don't need APUs as they don't need that level of graphics.

    Gamers - don't need APUs as they're underpowered to run games so will buy discreet.

    Laptop owners - won't buy AMD since their energy efficiency is decidedly sub-par.

    Leaving half a dozen HTPC types.

    1. captain veg Silver badge

      Re: APUs

      That may be true, but we need a viable AMD to keep Intel honest. Chipzilla only started taking energy efficiency seriosly when the Athlons started eating the P4's lunch.

      -A.

    2. thames

      Re: APUs

      @RonWheeler - "Non gamers - don't need APUs as they don't need that level of graphics."

      Er, no. that's not what an APU is. APUs are intended for non-gamers. That is, they provide enough hardware video acceleration to support composited desktops which all modern versions of MS Windows and Linux use. It lets them do window transitions, play video, animations, and all sorts of other things that the OS desktop, web browsers, and office suites do these days (and if at this point you're shouting "get off my lawn", AMD doesn't design the software, they just provide the chip).

      This lets the APU do the most computationally intensive routine stuff in the GPU portion of the chip without requiring as much "oomph" from the CPU side. In other words, they looked at how to balance the overall feature set for the average user within a given transistor budget. For most desktop users, CPUs hit the point of diminishing performance returns long ago, but routine graphics demands have continued to increase.

      If you're a gamer who wants the ultimate, then you need a separate CPU and separate graphics card because nobody can pack that many transistors into a single chip, especially if they don't want it to melt down.

      The history of computing has been to pack more and more functionality into fewer and fewer chips. Putting a good graphics processor onto the same chip as the CPU is the inevitable and inexorable continuation of that development. AMD saw that coming, and bought one of the two leading GPU makers (ATI). Intel's efforts in that field have been less than stellar. The result is that for everyday normal use, an AMD APU is for most people the best choice from a price/performance perspective.

      AMD's next generation APUs let the CPU and GPU share memory in a way which greatly reduces memory bandwidth bottlenecks. This will be of great advantage to people doing CPU/GPU computation work. This will be a very interesting field of development for a lot of specialised applications.

    3. ntevanza

      Re: APUs

      One of my APUs has been doing astronomy simulations for three straight years. It's only half the speed of the outboard (AMD) GPU it replaced, but it draws a third of the power.

      I'd need a reason to buy Intel. You forgot to suggest one, RonWheeler.

  9. Asterix the Gaul

    I used to game a lot,all that really mattered to me was IOP's & FPS depending on which game was using the most processing on the card or CPU.

    Contesting paralell processing on Intel has only recently been relevent, anyway ,most gamers still use dedicated cards rather than onboard graphics & Nvidia is unlikely to lose any sleep over AMD's rant.

    I first started off using AMD\ATI on my OEM's,it didn't last though as I quickly transitioned to Intel\Nvidia & never looked back.

    I started with AMD,because they had a reputation with business computing.

    Comparing AMD\INTEL over the last 2 decades shows that AMD have always trailed INTEL, not just on the architecture,but also on Drivers & power draw.

    As such, the logical choice was always going to be INTEL\Nvidia,both on speed(IOP's)but also on graphics.

    1. thames

      Right, because 32 bits ought to be enough for anyone.

      @Asterix the Gaul - "Comparing AMD\INTEL over the last 2 decades shows that AMD have always trailed INTEL, not just on the architecture,"

      Right, because 32 bits ought to be enough for anyone. And if you really need 64 bits, well there's always the Intel Itanic, which dominates industry market share. I heard that AMD was planning to respond to Itanic by coming up with some sort of 64 bit extensions to the x86 architecture. I wonder what ever happened to that?

  10. captain veg Silver badge

    Virtualisation?

    If I'm building a system I tend to run with AMD because you generally get more cores for a given price and I'm certainly going to be running VMs on it, so the more cores the better*. Oh, and I'm a cheapskate.

    -A.

    * In my imagination, anyway. Never benchmarked it.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    AMD's earnings to be released today must be C R A P

    Looks like AMD is trying to deflect what probably is a terrible earnings report today with this FUD.

    AMD's CPUs are known to be garbage thus Intel takes them to the cleaners in benchmarks.

    1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

      Re: AMD's earnings to be released today must be C R A P

      "AMD's CPUs are known to be garbage thus Intel takes them to the cleaners in benchmarks."

      Well, my many years old Phenom X4 (originally X2) with some old DDR (3 is it? could be DDR2), runs the dog of a horribly non-optimised game Ark Survival at about 65% CPU utilisation.

      I'd say a lot of the perception that Intel was so far ahead has been exactly because of these rigged benchmarks. The Phenom seems to have been great for proper multithread+multicore programming.

      Excellent value for money, with a lot of upgrading options.

      Besides, can you imagine the prices for processors if everyone went with Intel, and abandoned AMD?

      I'm planning to stand by AMD when eventually my really old Phenom is running out of headroom -if ever. (Hell, I can probably drop another AMD into my old mobo and get an easy 50% performance improvement for peanuts.)

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Richard needs to get his facts straight

    AMD calling out bogus benchmark makers has nothing to do with VW. It's been documented for years that certain benchmarks are bogus and do not present an accurate performance metric for AMD products while showing a disproportionately high performance for Intel CPUs.

    BTW, VW having a small group of rogue engineers and programmers doesn't make them a bad company for being duped by some unsavory personnel. General Motors had a few bad employees also who covered up a defective ignition switch that resulted in the deaths of over 100 people, yet the media gave GM a free pass on the deaths and cover up. Why is that? Is this akin to Intel getting a free pass for their conviction on illegally preventing AMD vendors from marketing AMD products without intimidation or reprisal?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Richard needs to get his facts straight

      BTW, VW having a small group of rogue engineers and programmers doesn't make them a bad company for being duped by some unsavory personnel

      You are so funny! Of course there was no management involved........

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    About time that some honesty prevail instead of the malicious fraud that's been perpetuated

    For years it has been known by many in the PC industry that benchmarks were intentionally written to favor Intel products. This recent complaint by AMD is just another example of Intel shills intentionally deceiving consumers and they should be held accountable for their intent to defraud. Almost no information is disclosed on benchmark testing to consumers making the bogus benchmarks even more disconcerting and questionable. I hope the judicial system holds all who attempt to deceive the public, accountable for their actions via serious fines and mandates that will remove fraudulent benchmarks.

    Intel already escaped accountability for violation of anti-trade laws by preventing or discriminating against vendors selling AMD products. Intel should have been fined treble losses which would have been about $100 billion dollars. Instead they paid $1 billion in fines.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like