By: Ungo (a.delete@this.b.c.d.e), August 12, 2014 3:28 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 12, 2014 3:27 am wrote:
> Sure, but I believed I had joined a tech forum, not some store forum...
The problem is you, not the forum. You're a stubborn wannabe who refuses to accept it when people with real industry experience debunk your silly armchair quarterback arguments.
People are insisting on hardware that can be bought because in the real world (note how those words are part of the forum's title, not just "tech") because there is a long history of vendors playing games with benchmarks. Even if the vendor isn't outright cheating, there are ways: cherry-picking which benchmarks to run, choosing unrealistic data sets, and so forth.
If independent third parties can't attempt to run benchmarks of their own, let alone attempt to replicate the vendor's results, you should default to assuming it's the same sort of self-serving propaganda which you accused that RISC/CISC paper of being. How can you not see the contradiction in your thinking here?
(At least that paper you hate actually attempted to quantify things, attempts to explain its methodology, and so on. I dunno if it's truly sound, I haven't taken the time to critically review it and I'm probably not the right person to do that anyways, but at least they put something in writing which you can analyze and criticize. You're coming here and insisting that airy rumor-quality bullshit about 90W ARM chips which have never been on sale anywhere must be taken as proof of your assertions? No. Sorry, no.)
You have a choice here: you can learn from people who have real experience. You can try to learn how to think critically. Or you can keep being a dumb fanboy. Your move.
> Sure, but I believed I had joined a tech forum, not some store forum...
The problem is you, not the forum. You're a stubborn wannabe who refuses to accept it when people with real industry experience debunk your silly armchair quarterback arguments.
People are insisting on hardware that can be bought because in the real world (note how those words are part of the forum's title, not just "tech") because there is a long history of vendors playing games with benchmarks. Even if the vendor isn't outright cheating, there are ways: cherry-picking which benchmarks to run, choosing unrealistic data sets, and so forth.
If independent third parties can't attempt to run benchmarks of their own, let alone attempt to replicate the vendor's results, you should default to assuming it's the same sort of self-serving propaganda which you accused that RISC/CISC paper of being. How can you not see the contradiction in your thinking here?
(At least that paper you hate actually attempted to quantify things, attempts to explain its methodology, and so on. I dunno if it's truly sound, I haven't taken the time to critically review it and I'm probably not the right person to do that anyways, but at least they put something in writing which you can analyze and criticize. You're coming here and insisting that airy rumor-quality bullshit about 90W ARM chips which have never been on sale anywhere must be taken as proof of your assertions? No. Sorry, no.)
You have a choice here: you can learn from people who have real experience. You can try to learn how to think critically. Or you can keep being a dumb fanboy. Your move.