Re: HWZ: One of the hot topics recently has been about the benchmark ethics issues. We've heard see-saw comments from both sides, but do you have anything personal to add for us?
Henri Richard: Intel went out and took SPECint2000, knowing there is already SPECint2006 and they did that only because it advantaged their platform vs. ours. There is a simple question to ask, if SPECint2006 had shown better results than SPECint2000 instead, which one would you have used?
I think on this one, they can't pull off a lie. It is just so blatantly obvious that instead of playing by the rules, they are trying to do anything they can to manipulate the public opinion. That just demonstrates that they're not a leadership company. It is a coward's approach and all we want is the truth. We lose some, and win some. We don't win every benchmark, not even in SPECint2006, but why deceive users by using a six-year old benchmark. I've read the answer of their spokesperson saying, "Well we just used whatever was available on AMD's website". That is a lame answer.
I think it's even funnier that AMD's Stereo Salesman can say this with a straight face, after even AMD was exposed for doing the same thing in China (using SPEC_CPU2k instead of SPEC_CPU2006). And for that matter, why is it lame to use the same benchmark that AMD uses on their site to counter AMD's performance claims...? If AMD is using the benchmark, why shouldn't Intel refute it? A lame answer? Puh-lease!
Richard's a real piece of work... one of the most deceptive and unethical guys you'll ever meet.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
