Ungo (a.delete@this.b.c.d.e) on August 12, 2014 3:28 pm wrote:
> 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.
>

Another silly post full of it that avoids any serious discussion.