Intel's malpractices continue ...

[Scali]

I already said it in another thread, but it would be more in place here:

I have taken a program of mine that I compiled for P3 with ICC. Then I replaced all occurences of "GenuineIntel" with "AuthenticAMD". This should be enough to fool the program into turning on the optimizations on an AMD CPU instead of on an Intel.
There was no increase in speed on my Athlon XP, nor decrease.
The same program actually does run faster when compiled with VS.NET, but apparently it is not because it was deliberately slowed down on my Athlon. I don't have an actual P3 to test it on, so I don't know if that one would be faster with the Intel-compiled version, or if the modified AMD version would be slower on it.
When I compile for P4 and run it on a Northwood, it does go quite a bit faster than VS.NET. But I cannot run that version on my Athlon XP, and I don't have an Athlon64 to test it on.

 

[Dan_D]

I don't think this will hold up in court.

Basically, the compiler (written by intel for intel CPU's) checks to see if it is Intel hardware, and if it is then the complier uses all the features of the CPU. If it is not Intel hardware it uses the most compatable code path, because Intel doesn't want to be held accountable for possible faults in non Intel hardware. (EG: if a VIA C3 SSE instruction did not work, it would cause the software to crash if the complier tried to use it)

Intel is under no obligation to make the most effecent use of non Intel hardware with Intel software, and given the liabilty, using the most compatable code paths on non Intel hardware makes sense.

==>Lazn

I agree. It does make sense. AMD can bitch all they want. Fact is if the industry is using mostly Intel CPU's and Intel compilers there isn't much they can do. Despite this fact, the AMD CPU's perform better than the Intel's on alot of things.

 

[Donnie27]

I agree. It does make sense. AMD can bitch all they want. Fact is if the industry is using mostly Intel CPU's and Intel compilers there isn't much they can do. Despite this fact, the AMD CPU's perform better than the Intel's on alot of things.

So what do you think of this review?

Keep in mind that the 3800+ is much more expensive. Is this a why AMD is suing? The price premium does remove a lot of AMD's advantage here. $235 for the OEM @ Starmicro and $250 for the retail from Newegg.

Donnie27

 

[Scali]

That shows once again that it's not just about performance, but about price/performance. As long as the price is right, even slower CPUs can be great value for money.
The same with videocards, the real bargains are in the low and medium performance range, the high-performance cards are never good value for money.

 

[Donnie27]

That shows once again that it's not just about performance, but about price/performance. As long as the price is right, even slower CPUs can be great value for money.
The same with videocards, the real bargains are in the low and medium performance range, the high-performance cards are never good value for money.

Yes, most of the time, folks in this market Sector never buy top of the line or even higher end equipment. We're use to value added through overclocking or other measures. Again, it's not the everday users, but the AMD and Intel Plants who try to justify rip-off from either company. Lately, its been more making excuses for AMD.

That why I asked the other guy; Faster but at what cost? If the 4800 was 25% in my most used app, does that mean it 300% higher price difference is worth it? The 3800+ X2 costs about $150 dollars more. Sorry, I didn't see the price of a motherboard difference in the two. AMD might be listening to too many Yes men and not there own folks who might be telling them their expecting too much of a premium.