Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 01:26:25 06/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2003 at 16:11:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 25, 2003 at 13:20:46, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On June 25, 2003 at 04:52:12, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On June 25, 2003 at 03:55:03, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >>> >>>>Apple Hardware VP Defends Benchmarks: >>>> >>>>http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/03/06/24/2154256.shtml?tid=126&tid=181 >>> >>>I'll be darned. An oinking weasel. >> >>It obviously doesn't pass the smell test when Apple's scores disagree with the >>officially submitted SPEC scores so dramatically, even if the VP does try to >>justify their testing methodology. >> >>The guy mentions that the PPC scores could have been higher if they had used a >>different compiler? Uhhh, why didn't they do that and avoid this whole mess? >> >>-Tom > > >His testing methodology was not _that_ bad. He _did_ use the same compiler for >both processors, which is certainly reasonable. > >Whether he used that specific compiler because it made the g5 look better is >another issue, although it is doubtful that the gcc guys have got any great >g5 customizations built in yet. G5 is the same core as the POWER4, which has been around for a while now. -Tom
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.