🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4d7mln$f940@hopi.gate.net>, Chad Irby <cirby@gate.net> wrote:
>Robert Salasidis (salasidis@medcor.mcgill.ca) wrote:
>: 
>: The Intel benchmark error was only for the SpecInt92 #s, the SpecInt95 
>: and fp were accurate.
>
>Were they?
>
>Gee- after Intel managed to make their "reference compiler" run 10% 
>faster with a "bug," it kinda makes you wonder just how much of their 
>benchmark-generating code is designed to do nothing else but run 
>benchmarks. 
>
>The whole idea of the Spec benchmarks was supposed to be a non-fudgable 
>result, right?
>
>Put it simply.  Intel cheated on Spec92.  What makes you think they were 
>honest in running the code for Spec95?
>
>You know, for years people have been saying that Intel machines turned 
>out real-world results much slower than their supposed "benchmark" 
>numbers would indicate.  There's your answer.
>
>-- 
>
>Chad Irby           /    My greatest fear: that future generations will,
>cirby@gate.net     /      for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."

Was it not Andy Grove himself, CEO of Intel who said, "Business is war",
and, "Only the paranoid survive." ?

Caveat emptor.

David Derbes [loki@midway.uchicago.edu]