Again, no one has proved that it is biased. Sysmark measures actual CPU power using high CPU intensive loads. AMD tried to claim it was bias by using PCMark8 Work Accelerated, which is an OpenCL benchmark that doesn't put a high load on the CPU. AMD's claim is way more biased and BS than Intel using Sysmark.
For that they did another custom benchmark, so it's covered anyway. Also the AMD APU is afaik better in gaming, so it doesn't really matter. See silentbogos post with that video.
Not PCMark 8 Work Accelerated. Go watch the video again, that is what they used. There is a pretty big reason they picked that specific benchmark. It is basically nothing more than a Microsoft Office benchmark(well LibreOffice). They didn't use the entire PCMark8 test suit, they specifically picked the least CPU intense benchmark possible. No one gives a shit about PCMark8 Work because any processor on the market today can handle Excel and Word, you won't see much difference between the shittiest celeron and an 8-Core i7.
And "no one" gives a shit about Sysmark too. It's purely artificial and unrealistic, I care more about PC Mark than this probably Intel biased BS. But I agree that PCMark 8 Work is worthless - but well, everyone tries to BS his own thing, so it's basically the same shit Intel does. But again, when Intel does that, nobody is ever attacking Intel for it, but AMD gets hated at every chance possible...
AMD's been relying on their better onboard GPU for years. And that is a fine argument if you want to talk about GPU power. But we aren't here, we are talking about CPU power. If they wanted to show how much better the GPU is, show some game benchmarks, show some GPU compute benchmarks. Whatever. Don't run PCMark8 Work to try to mask the fact that while the GPU might be really good, the CPU portion is still way behind Intel. Because the fact is most people don't care how powerful the onboard GPU is as long as it can play back their HD video(and now 4k), which Intel's solution can easily handle. So making the GPU more powerful doesn't really appeal to the mass market.
I never said I'm only talking about CPU power, we can add GPUs to the discussion. You are right, the video isn't about GPU power it's about every day tasks. CPU maybe far behind, but as you said yourself, it's not important, because these PCs are just for everyday tasks and it probably won't matter anytime in the lifetime of that laptop, so... it's not so important. What AMD did was just proving that their AMD powered laptops are equally good enough for doing random tasks as Intel powered laptops. And on top of that: who needs a strong CPU like that, from Intel, with that weak GPU inside it? These laptops aren't balanced, I rather take a weaker CPU with mediocre GPU, than a strong CPU with a totally weak GPU. Balance is everything. Or GPU is more important.
No it isn't, for the reasons I've mentioned. All this is is AMD shouting "we're just as good as Intel at Excel!!!"
That's all the video is about, you're just making it more complex than it really is. What AMD intended to do was a simple thing, our discussion is way beyond that, to that point that its already become somewhat pointless.
I would probably agree with that if they ran the entire PCMark8 suit. But they didn't, becuase they knew the i5 would kick their asses in the other more CPU intensive parts.
If they would've run every benchmark they would've also included a GPU benchmark or game and then AMD would've at least won that point. As already said, a balanced system is everything, or, GPU is more important than CPU. Take your pick. Reminds me of that thread with the guy with A8-6600 APU who wants to upgrade CPU or GPU and almost everybody told him to update the GPU to GTX 970. Suits somewhat to this topic. GPU > CPU. We aren't in the year 2000 anymore.
Yep, but you also don't need an 8800P. My Celeron does all of those tasks just fine. So I guess AMD's, and your, argument is the FX-8800P is no better than a CELERON. I mean, if that is the logic you want to go by, sure, we can say that...
Isn't the 8800P already a budget processor? If yes, I don't see your point.
I think that is very inaccurate. We are moving into a more mobile and digital world by the day. People are getting rid of their desktop computers completely and moving to lightweight laptops. At the same time they are doing things like ripping music and re-encoding video for their other mobile devices more and more. Heck, my 60 year old uncle, a man I never thought I'd even see using a computer, no regularly encodes video to burn to DVDs. At every family gathering he is handing out DVDs of his grandkids that he made from movies off his phone. To do that I bought him an i5 laptop. If he was just looking for office tasks he'd still be using his old Pentium 987 laptop, there would really be no reason to upgrade.
I don't think its inaccurate, I think its the reality. Most people don't do what your uncle does, do you want a counter example of your example what really just is a exception? My own father who is pretty well with computer since over 30 years, isn't doing anything else than some internet, some movie looking and some lightweight gaming with his 6 year old PC. Your uncle is really just a exception, a good one that is. And btw. that Pentium laptop was maybe very old and heavy etc. there are more advances besides CPU/GPU power. Weight, battery lifetime, display, connections, looks etc. etc.
Sure, I think that is what AMD is trying to make us believe. But it is wrong to look at it that way. Like I've pointed out, the things AMD is saying the FX-8800P is just as good as Intel's i5-5200u at are things that any processor is just as good at. That is a biased way to look at CPU power. If they would have done the entire PCMark8 suit, ok, maybe they have a point. But just picking one benchmark, that is the least CPU intensive one, to try to say Intel's claims that their CPUs are are more powerful is more biased and much bigger marketing BS than anything Intel has said.
Maybe that video IS full of shit, yes. As I already said they should have done something else, that video is way too dramatic, they didn't play it cool. First thing: don't do videos like that. Second: if you must, do it cool. Where is the gaming? Where are GPU heavy tasks? That APU IS comparable to the i5 if you compare everything. But they didn't do it, they just compared CPU power and in a poor fashion, I give you that. This just makes the video somewhat silly, but doesn't change the fact that the FX processor is comparable enough to me, or let's say, good hardware too.
A laptop is something you choose by your usage, what you want to do with it. I'd rather take the AMD one if I wanted to play, if not, I'd take the Intel, or I wouldn't care at all, would decide on other things (price etc).
PS. Remembered AMD saying "we don't compete with Intel anymore". What? That video is just that. They shouldn't have done it. Problem is, they wanted to get out of the way by doing APUs, but Intel got into APUs too, so they are again competing with Intel. They did anyway, I think this whole "we don't compete with Intel anymore" was BS talk. As long as they produce x86 CPUs/APUs they compete with Intel and need to be comparable. If they aren't they lose the fight and cease to exist as a company. I think Zen is the next step in this long "war", Zen starts the battle again (or at least we hope so). After Zen, they can't even say "we aren't competing with Intel". That's the whole point of Zen, to gain market share back from them.
At this point in the game, CPU speed matters very little to the average user. Throughput from the storage device and GPU performance are much bigger factors in determining whether a computer feels slow (to the average user/gamer).
If I were AMD, I'd be focusing my marketing on the price-point and the R&D and getting power usage down.
+1
---
@Bill_Bright :
All these accusations of Intel lying or AMD lying are now just getting silly.
Everytime you enter a thread you start patronizing someone or everybody. Wise men aren't smart-asses, sorry. Pls stop the acting.
When you shop for a PSU, do you go only by the information in the maker's ads and brochures? Or do you go by the results on the professional review sites?
Nobody said that. And this topic is not about PSUs. So hard to stay on the topic and what was said here? I think you need the big talks for your patronized acting.
If you say you go by the maker's ads and brochures, then cough up the hook, line and sinkers - and your wallets because I have some prime swamp land in Florida that will be perfect for you. Same with cases, monitors, cars, TVs, home theater receivers, etc.
Your arrogance is somewhat annoying too. Not the first time btw.
If you say you do your homework and go by what the professional review sites (that's sites, not site) say, then you are a wise consumer.
Maybe if you were someone wise your words would matter, but you aren't. I know how wise man are, they aren't patronizing and aren't smart asses - and they aren't arrogant. You are far far away from being wise, so please don't waste your time telling us or me what is wise and what not.
And all the talk in this thread is about ALL Intels and ALL AMDs - as if every single product one maker produces is superior to every single product of the other maker.
Yeah right.
Plain bullshit. Nobody said they talk about "all Intels vs all AMDs".
All this silly criticism over AMD using this benchmarking program to make their processors shine, or Intel using that benchmarking to make their processors look better is really just wasting everyone's time.
Then go away and don't read it. And don't post here. That "wastes your time" or doesn't it? Strange... I think you are more or less just here (at least this thread) for the patronizing part, but not really to help. Kinda egoistic.
No it's not! It's about an accusation that Intel conspired with SySmark to show significantly better performance with Intel over AMD CPUs.
Wrong, it's about both and a lot of other things too. Somewhat shortsighted of you.
And BTW, this row over SySmark is nothing new. Both
AMD and Nvidia quit SySmark benchmark group years ago because of unrealistic testing and results that do not reflect real-world scenarios.
Again some smartassing. And it doesn't help a bit. Intel still uses it in ads for their products. You don't seem to get the point of this thread.
All these accusations of Intel lying or AMD lying are now just getting silly.
