Comment

Comment on Intel accused of inflating CPU benchmark results

QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

So they put out an article claiming that the thermal safety was defective, and the thermal safety was defective, and you see that as some grandiose conspiracy perpetrated by Intel? And you’re still upset about it?

Even if Intel did discover and publish the defect, what exactly did they do wrong? I would reasonably expect AMD and Intel to be testing each other’s hardware constantly. Would you have preferred that Intel didn’t publish their findings?

source

Sort:hotnew top

Buffalox@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The thermal safety was not defective, only a few years prior thermal safety wasn’t even available. The article created an artificial situation that never occurs in reality, and claimed the CPU should be able to handle that.

source
- QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  So you’re saying that the CPU burning out when the cooler is removed, is the thermal safety working as intended? Sorry, I was not familiar with the situation at the time, but the way you initially described the issue doesn’t sound like foul play.
  
  source
  - AMDIsOurLord@lemmy.ml ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    The cooler falling off is an impossible situation. It’s a completely bullshit metric. Intel CPUs of the time ran hotter, used more power, and had lower IPC, hence the higher clock speeds but lower actual performance. They had to invent some bullshit to make themselves look good.
    
    Besides, just a while before that generation thermal safety wasn’t even a thing, if you remove the cooler from older Intel processors it just catches fire lol
    
    source
    QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    The cooler falling off is an impossible situation. It’s a completely bullshit metric.
    
    I don’t disagree - I can’t imagine that ever happening in real life. But taking the cooler off while it’s running? I can definitely envision my idiot 13-year-old self doing that back when I was building my first PC.
    
    Intel CPUs of the time ran hotter, used more power, and had lower IPC, hence the higher clock speeds but lower actual performance. They had to invent some bullshit to make themselves look good.
    
    Given this information, I probably still would have gone with the Athlon. Are you saying that a report about a very-difficult-to-trigger defect in the thermal safety single-handedly convinced thousands/millions of potential customers to choose the Pentium instead?
    
    Besides, just a while before that generation thermal safety wasn’t even a thing, if you remove the cooler from older Intel processors it just catches fire lol
    
    I’m guessing that’s why thermal safety was a selling point, no?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments