Replies to post #40127 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[wbmw]

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.

[RGood]

Tecate and all,

This henri Richard guy -

I'm sorry, I can't take this guy seriously - he looks like Kramer from Seinfeld..without the crazy hair..

Ronster

[Tenchu]

Kate, some quotable quotes from the sleazebag (sorry, I think calling him a "stereo salesman" is insulting to that profession):

- Today, when you look at the market space, there are only three companies � our usual competitor, whose agenda is still very much to ask users to spend most of their dollars on the CPU, and the other company, whose both our partner and in some case our competitor, whose agenda is to say the GPU is the most important part of the system. The way AMD is positioned is to say, �Well listen, let the users choose. Let's give the market, their customers and their end-users the opportunity to differentiate their platform with a mix and match of CPU/GPU/chipset capability�.

- The R600 will be out in the second quarter. The reason we decided to delay the launch was that we wanted to have a complete DX10-enabled solution top to bottom. A lot of people wrote that the reason it is delayed is because of a problem with the silicon, but there is no problem with the silicon. We are demonstrating it. We can ship it today.

- Again, I think this is an area where our strategy differs from Intel, because we don't want users to spend money on technology that doesn't get used at all. Yes, there is a small percentage of desktop users that will see benefit from quad-core. That's why we made the Quad FX platform.

- Well, there are two ways to look at the Quad FX platform. People who are looking at it and think that it is an attempt at better benchmarking are wrong. That's not why we did it. We did it for two reasons. First, I believe that the ATX form factor is completely out of runway, given the parallel roads now needed inside a system. ... As far as benchmarks go and being a great performance product, Windows XP doesn't manage NUMA architecture. So the fact is that we have two processors with their dedicated memory not getting any benefit from the operating system. Vista does manage NUMA, so the same benchmark on XP are significantly different on Vista. Quad FX was never meant for XP, which we know is basically EOL, but it was made for Vista. None of the benchmarks today that have been published have been on Vista.

- The PC OEM market today is one where it is very difficult to make any money. There's a reason for that and that is the monopoly and tax imposed by Intel.

- If Intel focused on expanding a 35 billion dollar company to 70 billion and in the process of doing that AMD were to go from 10 to 20 billion, who cares. They are still No.1, they are still doing well. But instead being focused on expanding the market, they think their path to greatness is to take us and beat us 2-300 million bucks a quarter, which is ridiculous.

- Simply because Intel is playing PR, manipulating benchmarks, I don't think it's a right thing to do. I could do the same, but I'd rather just call their bluff.

- Sure, but I can only say this and talk on my personal experience. When I joined AMD 5 years ago, our balance sheet was extremely weak and I remember very well talking to Robert Rivet, our CFO and he gave me a very clear plan on how he was going to fix the balance sheet and he executed every step of it. Today, when I go talk to him about our cash flow, he has a very good plan in place. And I have no reason to doubt that the same man that did a fantastic job 5 years ago can't do it again.

I'll leave it to you guys to find the flaw in every single argument of his. ;-)

Tenchu