Phil (phil@phil.com) on 9/22/10 wrote:
---------------------------
>anon (anon@anon.com) on 9/21/10 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>someone (someone@somewhere.com) on 9/21/10 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>Max (nousefor@name.com) on 9/21/10 wrote:
>>>---------------------------
>>>>http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/press/173536
>>>>
>>>>some benchmarks:
>>>>
>>>>http://blogs.sun.com/BestPerf/entry/sparc_t3_4_sets_world
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>gone is the 2x per core performance claim. we still will be getting 4 t3-2 boxen here.
>>>
>>>Sun used to release SPECint_rate numbers for its T chips.
>>>I hope Oracle hasn't stopped this practice.
>>
>>I think the more general rule is that Sun only releases benchmark numbers when
>>it makes them look good. I doubt this practice will have changed.
>
>And do you think IBM or Intel would release benchmarks that *don't* make them look good?

Not sure about IBM. But Intel has no control about benchmarks released by their partners. So they often prefer to release as good as possible results by themselves rather then wait for partners to submit sumsing even worse.
For example, I suppose, Intel would be glad to not tell the world to know how weak Dunnington is in SpecFp_rate. Nevertheless they published the score:

http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2008q4/cpu2006-20080915-05340.html