Monday, June 27th 2011

AMD Will Not Endorse SYSmark 2012 Benchmark, Separates from Association with BAPCo

AMD today announced that it will not endorse the SYSmark 2012 Benchmark (SM2012), which is published by BAPCo (Business Applications Performance Corporation). Along with the withdrawal of support, AMD has resigned from the BAPCo organization.

“Technology is evolving at an incredible pace, and customers need clear and reliable measurements to understand the expected performance and value of their systems,” said Nigel Dessau, senior vice president and Chief Marketing Officer at AMD. “AMD does not believe SM2012 achieves this objective. Hence AMD cannot endorse or support SM2012 or remain part of the BAPCo consortium.”

AMD will only endorse benchmarks based on real-world computing models and software applications, and which provide useful and relevant information. AMD believes benchmarks should be constructed to provide unbiased results and be transparent to customers making decisions based on those results. Currently, AMD is evaluating other benchmarking alternatives, including encouraging the creation of an industry consortium to establish an open benchmark to measure overall system performance.

AMD encourages anyone wanting more details about the construction and scoring methodology of the SM2012 benchmark to contact BAPCo. For more details on AMD’s decision to exit BAPCo, please read AMD’s Executive Blog authored by Nigel Dessau.
Add your own comment

15 Comments on AMD Will Not Endorse SYSmark 2012 Benchmark, Separates from Association with BAPCo

yeah performance not always counted with benchmark. benchmark is important but more important how its performance in real world
Posted on Reply
Editor & Senior Moderator
Like they say, if you're consistently bad at golf, play something else.
Posted on Reply
News Editor
Because Bulldozer flops in this benchmark?
Posted on Reply
thunderising said:
Because Bulldozer flops in this benchmark?
Because the benchmark fails to account for GPU performance.

Both Nvidia and VIA left BAPCo too
Posted on Reply
Besides, we all know AMD processors are awful in for exampel SuperPi but in real world they are not much different than Intel processors.
Posted on Reply
About time this happens, APU cannot be measured in these "traditional" benchmarking tools.
Posted on Reply
btarunr said:
Like they say, if you're consistently bad at golf, play something else.
And in this case its the course
Posted on Reply
Melvis said:
And in this case its the course
hahaha your right :toast:
Posted on Reply
btarunr said:
Like they say, if you're consistently bad at golf, play something else.
Or consistently decent, but not as good as the guy who's got $50,000 worth of titanium rocket-powered clubs? I'd say keep at it, as long as you're having fun, and not wasting too much money.
Posted on Reply
That its ok but...Where is BullDozer??
Posted on Reply
What is nVidia's reasoning for leaving BAPCo, since they don't have an x86 CPU? What about VIA, with their low power designs?

As for AMD, I think they're full of it. If their CPU's were in fact close (or better) to their main competitor's CPU's in regard to pure CPU (ALU/INT) performance we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And to address the poor excuse they presented here:

All the HTML5 and JS is only used in demo sites or other benchmarks and seldom in real life. I for one have not used any service built on these technologies.

GPU acceleration to do what? Is the actual application GPU accelerated, or is it just a small thing, one little menu entry that does something we're not really using that often. If AMD supports OpenCL so vigorously where are my OpenCL applications? Why is he hiding behind OpenCL when there isn't anyone out there using it in their application development process?

I think for now the "integrated" GPU doesn't have that much importance compared to the CPU. It might in the future, but not now. Today, the real world, the business world is very much CPU centric.

He states:
SM2012 doesn’t represent the evolution of computer processing and how that evolution is influencing average users’ experience. SM2012 focuses only on the serial processing performance of the CPU, and virtually ignores the parallel processing performance of the GPU. In particular, SM2012 scores do not take into account GPU-accelerated applications that are widely used in today’s business environments.
...Where? What applications? Does he think we all stay at our desks encoding pr0n with our GPUs? And I think Sandy Bridge might be faster there...

Most of us have real jobs. I have not seen many GPU accelerated applications (business or otherwise). The only exceptions are some of Adobe's CS applications and those require discrete GPU's. Yes there are these boring movie encoders, but in the business world, they're only good for previews and not the actual final print, because quality suffers when there's a GPU involved.

Office 2011? Oh yeah, businesses are at 2007. It's the way they work, slow.

Maybe he's talking about CAD/CAM? Oh yeah, there is a real example of where you can really make use of an APU. They're idiots for buying Tesla/Quadro/FirePro... Or am I to understand that the APU is here to replace the FirePro?

That doesn't seem to "widely used in today's business environments" in my opinion... is playing shitty games at shitty levels of detail on shitty resolution screens in your bedroom 24/7 a sustainable business model? He needs to come up with a REAL list with these applications and their intended use, the ratio of CPU/GPU integrated functionality, and not just crafted words.

I understand what they are trying to do... I really do. But the world isn't there. And lying about it can't really help their APU business, can it?

I will end my rant now... Not because there isn't anything else to rant about, but because I don't think anyone at AMD actually gives a cookie.
Posted on Reply
IE and windows interfaces are GPU accelerated, videos are GPU accelerated and enhanced, OpenCL is a up and coming development (3D mark is using it as a more fair comparison than the crappy Physx comparison that has all but flopped) that Adobe is starting to use as is other companies that make good video rendering software.

All products that supported Stream software will be supported AFAIK, and soon Nvidia will implement full cross platform support with CUDA.
Posted on Reply
Sihastru you are reasoning why not to use GPU acceleration in this soft because not many applications use it but do you even know what they use to measure the performance in this soft? For example one thing they use is some excel processing with 35,000 row spreadsheet, are you saying that is a real word situation? And using outdated parts in this soft to measure is kinda funny, don't you think.

But the main problem would be with the totally biased score this soft generates.
Intel is by 7% faster but gets a score higher by 40% despite the fact the AMD system is much much cheaper, I thought this soft was used to decide PC's for government so the price should be a major deciding factor. It would be different if this chart wasn't true but that would just bite AMD back so I think its true.
The best part was when I red the statement from BAPco, where they said they voted 100% for all AMD's proposals but AMD only for about 80% from others, like hell thats true then why the GPU acceleration doesn't have any say in the score or why the score generation is so biased shown in the chart, stop kidding.
Posted on Reply
Fourstaff said:
About time this happens, APU cannot be measured in these "traditional" benchmarking tools.
An APU is nothing more than a CPU and a GPU together with a fancy name, at least for now.
Posted on Reply
GPU not important..

You wrote: "I think for now the "integrated" GPU doesn't have that much importance compared to the CPU. It might in the future, but not now. Today, the real world, the business world is very much CPU centric."
[ * ]

I would personally give that statement a big asterisk (isn't that the wingless bird with hairy feathers?). Well, no matter. I can only speak to my own situation, where I am getting ready to run the Adobe Production Premium CS5.5, and they provide a complete list of GPU's that they have on their "recommended list" if one wishes that GPU to have a part in accelerating the graphics.

Interesting enough, they are ALL nVidia chipsets (470GTX, 570GTX and 580GTX on the consumer/gaming side).. on the "workstation side, they recommend the quite a few models of the "Quadro" series, where the cost starts at around $1100USD and goes up to roughly $5400USD. They might be kick-butt, butt they are definately out of my neighborhood!

I've also collected over the years a special effects generator, titler and even a telestrator.. that's the thing the sportsguys use on TV to draw the lines over the direct video. It was one of those $2500USD selling for $200 that I tested and just couldn't allow to get away from my "toy collection." I figure I'll get $200 worth of annoyance out of the family drawing on faces, pointing where things SHOULD have gone, etc.. It's just part of my "gadget fetish." Anything with an ON/OFF switch makes me drool.. (grin)

Prior to loading the Adobe software, I'm doing the upgrade of all the various components first, and then also being sure to try to stay on the "Adobe recommends.." as far as my pocketbook will take me.

Their "minimum system" as described by the "Videoguys" is quite an upgrade for the standard user. Win7/Pro/64, three hard drives (software/working/archive), Bluray BD drive, min 8 GB RAM, fastest CPU you're credit card will allow without sobbing, plus that CPU addressed above.

Also, I was directed the other day to a PSC calculator or two and inserted the "guts" of the new computer after upgrading, and the calculators came within 10W each of 858W as a consensus.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. ORIGINALLY, it was running 13 cans of 400' of 8mm family film, but has grown to this behemoth. I've got the chromakey hardware here, special effects generator, titler, and even a telestrator (the thing John Madden used to draw lines on the US Football plays). Why a telestrator? It was originally $2900USD and the guy was selling it for $200USD. I'm quite sure I can get enough "annoyance" value out of it..

It will be interesting to see what STARTED OUT as a little "found some 8mm film, lets make a DVD out of it" project, and has blossomed into this equipment bath.

Fortunately, I price Photoshop and Premiere Pro over at the teacher store (I qualify for the discount), and just those two items run $550USD, BUT after the salesperson strongarmed me into switching over to the Production Premium CS5.5, the cost wound DOWN to $404, including:

Flash Pro
Premiere Pro

.. and 5 or 6 other add-ons, so at least I felt I got my $$ worth at THAT end.

Meanwhile, time to look at the little 3RU 5 monitor hookup I picked up (2 x 2" monitors one side, 7" monitor the other), and a Sony "three monitor setup, so I should have enough room to produce just about anything on the Fox network..


Posted on Reply
Add your own comment