none (none@none.com) on 8/13/10 wrote:
---------------------------
>AM (myname4rwt@jee-male.com) on 8/13/10 wrote:
>---------------------------
>[...]
>>which many of us would happily
>>forgive Intel if they provided the tuned versions of the code on their website --
>>both in traditions of science and to promote sales of their hardware?!
>
>That's alas the case that most (all?) papers providing
>benchmark results never provide a way to reproduce them, and
>this also applies to the papers linked by nVidia.

You didn't even care to read them, did you? For otherwise you'd know that unlike Intel's paper, there's source for at least some of them.

BTW all
>the arguments you gave that counter Intel paper apply equally
>well to the nVidia-linked articles, but on one side you have a
>company doing marketing, while on the other you have
>"scientific" papers.

Hmm. Who is doing marketing and who writes scientific papers then? :) Actually I don't recall Nvidia "debunking" anything in the manner Intel did. How many examples can you provide?