By: Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com), July 18, 2013 3:39 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on July 18, 2013 2:10 am wrote:
>
> This isn't a criminal court case. It's speculation, and yes there is circumstantial evidence, if you
> had followed the thread. From the evidence, I would say there is a pretty good chance that Intel made
> this optimization for this particular benchmark. There is also some non-zero chance it was a coincidence.
> Clearly you'll never get 100% indisputable proof (without seeing ICC source code).
>
> What we do know is that it was not a good benchmark of hardware capabilities,
> and it was clearly rigged in favor of the Intel chip.
>
> I think we have to just leave it at that.
As far as I am concerned, the ideal outcome would be - AnTuTu benchmark dyes and I never hear it mentioned again.
But a practical chance for such outcome is zero. People are too enamored by the promise of one single figure of merit. Which, by definition, can be supplied only by charlatans.
>
> This isn't a criminal court case. It's speculation, and yes there is circumstantial evidence, if you
> had followed the thread. From the evidence, I would say there is a pretty good chance that Intel made
> this optimization for this particular benchmark. There is also some non-zero chance it was a coincidence.
> Clearly you'll never get 100% indisputable proof (without seeing ICC source code).
>
> What we do know is that it was not a good benchmark of hardware capabilities,
> and it was clearly rigged in favor of the Intel chip.
>
> I think we have to just leave it at that.
As far as I am concerned, the ideal outcome would be - AnTuTu benchmark dyes and I never hear it mentioned again.
But a practical chance for such outcome is zero. People are too enamored by the promise of one single figure of merit. Which, by definition, can be supplied only by charlatans.
