backtop

Blog: Hardware DailyTech Digest: Of FUD and Gigahertz
Kristopher Kubicki (Blog) - August 1, 2007 3:20 AM
Print 43 comment(s) - last by Kef71.. on Aug 4 at 5:17 AM
Some thoughts on last week's AMD Analyst Day

I've been called out, as it were, by a writer from The Inquirer with regard to the 3.0 GHz AMD Phenom comments I made last week. I'll preface this by stating I was not at the show, but I was not completely out of the loop either.

According to Mr. Demerjian:
First off, some people have been spreading interesting "stories" on how the systems were presented. There were two, not one of them on display right next to each other. The one on the left was running Call of Juarez demo and the one on the right was running Stranglehold, the box itself is out of the frame.
According to DailyTech:
AMD made two systems running the Agena processors available for media to play select games.  The company would not let anyone view the system properties details, but sent the two featured images to press beforehand.
What can I say other than my information with this regard was second hand?  In addition, my contact at the show was there the day before Mr. Demerjian, and emailed the images found on DailyTech and several other publications the day before.

In fact, I reached out to several AMD employees with specific inquiries about the demonstrations -- all were ignored or denied for comment.  However, those same contacts at AMD public relations went out of the way to give me a quote about the processor ramp frequency. 

I'm glad Mr. Demerjian had a chance to kick the tires on the new 3.0 GHz Phenom machines.  I personally have a stricter burden of proof than "it would be pretty hard to run CoJ and Stranglehold smoothly at high rez with low clocked CPUs."  Afterall, we're still dealing with the same company that wrote the book on simulated benchmarks.

According to Mr. Demerjian:
Anyone who says anything different has an agenda. Anyone that says differently and was not there has serious credibility problems. In any case, none of the doom and gloom and/or alien technology conspiracies are true.
AMD's corporate roadmap, dated less than a week before the AMD Analyst Day states:
AMD Phenom™ FX-91
2.4-2.6GHz, 2MB Dedicated* L2
2MB Shared L3, Pkg 1207+
3600MHz HT 3.0 Bus

AMD Phenom™ X4 GP-7100
2.2-2.4GHz, 2MB Dedicated* L2
2MB Shared L3
3600MHz HT 3.0 Bus

Phenom X4 and X2 now begin shipping in Nov/Dec
Both of those processors are the halo offerings for AMD at the Phenom launch.  Doom and gloom?  Pragmatism and reservation might be a better choice of words.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
not the article?
By Spoelie on 8/1/2007 6:01:27 AM , Rating: 1
I assume the beef was not really with the article itself, but your comment reading:

"To his credit, the image on DT and every other publication was canned -- AMD gave it to media. They did not let media take their own pictures of the demo systems. Nor would they disclose what speeds the demo systems were running at."

Which implies some kind of conspiracy ;)




RE: not the article?
By Kim Leo on 8/1/2007 6:09:31 AM , Rating: 2
yeah mostly, except the "wrote the book on simulated benchmarks"-part, but the other your right, i've read that comment and another one which seemed quite unfair against AMD considering that this should rather be a hope than an idea of lies and cheat, i find it ok to be skeptical, we should always be, but all i see at the moment is Intel Fanboys bashing AMD for something Intel is more known for.


RE: not the article?
By crystal clear on 8/1/2007 7:19:39 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
but all i see at the moment is Intel Fanboys bashing AMD for something Intel is more known for.


but all I see at the momemt is Inq...Fanboys bashing K.K for something Inq... is more known for.....

Behind all your comments,I see bad intentions-

1)you want K.K.out of his job !

2)you want to brand him a liar & smear/spoil his reputations in the industry.

Whats all this noise about-all you do is to pick a comment & spin it around & brand him a liar !

Dont you have anything better to do ?


RE: not the article?
By Martimus on 8/1/2007 10:34:06 AM , Rating: 3
You have a vivid imagination. You seem to be able to draw far-fetched conclusions out of any comment people have. I know that I usually avoid reading your comments, but I didn't see any bold in this comment, so I didn't notice that you wrote it until half way through the comment. I can't for the life of me understand why you write the way you do. To see the Rush Limbaugh style attacking comments you always seem to make just baffles me. I mean what in his comment actually led you to come to those two conclusions?


RE: not the article?
By Martimus on 8/1/2007 10:42:32 AM , Rating: 2
Crystal Clear,

My last comment wasn't very nice, and I appologize for it. I am sure you have very good reasons for what you write, I just am not smart enough to figure it out most of the time. I am sorry for comparing you to Rush Limbaugh, because you actually have some substance behind your opinions and usually reference something. I don't always see how your reference refers to the comments that you are responding to, but you do provide references. I hope that things go well for you, and that you have a good day.

-Martimus


RE: not the article?
By crystal clear on 8/1/2007 11:17:43 AM , Rating: 2
Just for clarification purposes-my comment(above)is linked to the discussions in-

AMD Reveals Phenom Model Numbers
Anh Huynh (Blog) - July 28, 2007 12:19 AM

This guy I responded to made some serious accusations in the above article.
I responded to him-here & there.

Anyway thanks for such a dignified response-I always treat your comments with all the due respect.

Have a nice day !


RE: not the article?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/1/2007 6:43:50 AM , Rating: 4
Well as I mentioned, that was the deal at the time. I don't really know where he gets the notion of a conspiracy from that comment. He had one perspective of the analysis, I got a second one. He was allowed to fondle the hardware, I was not even supplied commentary upon request. To each his own.


RE: not the article?
By James Holden on 8/1/2007 7:42:31 AM , Rating: 2
Don't sweat the small stuff Kris.


RE: not the article?
By Moishe on 8/1/2007 8:23:38 AM , Rating: 4
It's always humorous and interesting to see the comments when something like the Phenom story comes out. Some instantly claim that you're against AMD, and some claim you're for AMD... Fact is, there is so little verifiable information (No thanks to AMD) that all anyone can do is speculate.

The safest position on this issue is squarely in the middle.

I think the inquirer just need someone to talk about (and put down) :)


RE: not the article?
By JackBeQuick on 8/1/2007 8:39:14 AM , Rating: 2
Well at least we know which side Charlie falls on... lol.


RE: not the article?
By Moishe on 8/1/2007 11:17:25 AM , Rating: 2
heh... no kidding.


RE: not the article?
By DeepThought86 on 8/1/2007 1:25:26 PM , Rating: 1
And Kibocki...LOLLOLOLOLOL


RE: not the article?
By Charlie Demerjian on 8/1/2007 2:15:51 PM , Rating: 5
"He was allowed to fondle the hardware, I was not even supplied commentary upon request. To each his own."

Would you like some nails for the cross you are bearing? You make it sound like I was given some great and special privilege by AMD, I was not. ANYONE who was there had the ability to crawl all over the systems, and had you been there, you would have too.

You were not there, and now you are trying to make a grand conspiracy out of it.

If you want the information, show up. It wasn't like the meeting wasn't posted all over their web site a month or so in advance, buy a plane ticket and walk in the door.

I can confirm that although I did register in advance, they were taking walk ins without a problem.

Stop trying to make this something it isn't.

-Charlie


RE: not the article?
By roryleds on 8/1/2007 2:43:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You were not there, and now you are trying to make a grand conspiracy out of it.
If anyone's trying to suggest a conspiracy here, its you. He did no more than state the information AMD gave him.

Personally, numerous experiences have taught me to take anything said by an Inq author with a massive grain of salt. Half your rumor-mill stories are proven false anywhere from months to minutes of being posted. But hey, if it generates page hits, who gives a hoot right?


RE: not the article?
By johnsonx on 8/1/2007 3:55:55 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't it possible that on the day Kubicki's source was there, AMD restricted access to the hardware exactly as described, but on the next day when you were there, AMD had decided that there was really no harm in letting the press look more closely at the machines?

This seems most plausible to me, as I presume both accounts to be true.


RE: not the article?
By redpriest_ on 8/2/2007 4:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
No, there was only one analyst day.


RE: not the article?
By Fritzr on 8/2/2007 8:21:50 PM , Rating: 2
Kris

I read Inq, Dailytech & a couple of others. That last part wasn't aimed at you. The way I took it on first reading the Inq version was that there are people out there who take any sign of failure to cooperate totally as evidence that there is a grand conspiracy...There are.

The writing style on that site is sarcastic to an extreme, occasionally crossing the line such as declaring one of the Linux Distros as dead and buried when a host server failed just as the Distro was changing hosts.

The regular readers know to accept what is written as material suitable for the National Lampoon and to follow the links to the rest of the story.

I didn't follow his links in that one, since buried in the sarcasm were the basic facts of the news. So I wasn't aware that this was the story :)


What about?
By Kim Leo on 8/1/2007 5:30:59 AM , Rating: 2
What about Intel?, i don't even need to find a link, you and many others know that Intel lied about theyre Prescott performance, if anyone wrote the book on simulated benchmark it would be intel! I am not saying AMD have done anything right by claiming these numbers, no that's wrong, AMD shouldn't do that but you should be more objective, Intel Did it but you don't hear people saying stuff like, Intel Probably lies again all the time, why in the world would AMD suprise people with a 3GHz K10 and lie and cheat about it? have AMD ever done something like that?, NO, and neither have intel, they both however have lied about how well there CPU is going to perform.




RE: What about?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/1/2007 6:36:43 AM , Rating: 2
I don't recall Intel showing off a simulated processor before, but they certainly promised and demonstrated CPUs that never saw the light of day on more than one occasion. 4GHz Pentium 4s come to mind.


RE: What about?
By BitJunkie on 8/1/07, Rating: -1
RE: What about?
By JackBeQuick on 8/1/2007 8:43:59 AM , Rating: 2
I haven't been following the Inq vs Dailytech thing for too long, but I will say that Inquirer writers are the only ones who ridicule other readers for not being "smart" enough to know which specific portions of the story to disregard.

At least over here I don't have to listen to the constant elitist bullshit unless someone like yourself drops by.


RE: What about?
By BitJunkie on 8/1/2007 9:12:30 AM , Rating: 2
I think you're missing the point. The Inq uses obscure humour and references to add some interest to the story, they can laugh at themselves and ridicule people who are talking bollocks - you need to be aware of the humour to get the full meaning of what they write. Most people who bitch about the Inq just don't get the humour, and lets face it, nobody likes to be the one to miss out on a joke right?

I'm not pro-Inq and anti-DT. I visit both sites because they offer their own unique view on stuff. I've had a moan at the Inq when I've felt they were writing stuff that was basically wrong via the "flame the author" option.

Kubicki wrote an ambiguous comment and let the following specultion run out of control without addressing it in anyway - so the thread that he started ended up saying "the AMD demo was a fake". He didn't intervene in any of that and he appears to intervene regularly in his threads when he is being taken out of context. Enough said.


RE: What about?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/1/2007 9:26:08 AM , Rating: 2
All I can say is that one slipped by. No tin-foil hat conspiracy or anything.


RE: What about?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/1/2007 10:00:25 AM , Rating: 2
> "The Inq uses obscure humour and references to add some interest to the story"

The Inquirer is an entertainment vehicle, not a news site. If they happen to get a story right, all the better...but its not their primary focus. As long as people understand that while reading their articles, there's no harm done.

> "Kubicki wrote an ambiguous comment and let the following specultion run out of control without addressing it in anyway..."

Are you seriously blaming an author for anonymously posted responses to his stories? Some of my blogs run 200+ commments...I don't have time to respond to all of them, nor would it be appropriate for me to do so.

The statements Kubicki wrote were correct. If someone wishes draw from them the conclusion that the demo was faked, that's their perogative. The facts are, we can't say for sure, due to AMDs stringent control of the test systems. Do I think it likely to be faked? No...but its certainly possible. And its certainly not an author's responsibility-- or even his right-- to squelch honest speculation and free speech in regards to facts he presents.


RE: What about?
By BitJunkie on 8/1/07, Rating: -1
RE: What about?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/1/2007 10:40:30 AM , Rating: 2
I stated this several times already. The images on DailyTech were definitely canned - someone sent them out in advance. The same person, on behalf of AMD, sent them to other places as well.

This contact stated that no media would have these images, since pictures would be prohibited during the event.

Additionally, when I requested details about these CPUs and systems, I got no response from AMD over different channels. In some cases I actually got a denied response.

If that's inaccurate, misleading and wrong then it bewilders me what the correct response is.


RE: What about?
By Moishe on 8/1/2007 11:28:46 AM , Rating: 2
It's almost as if BitJunkie wants to you to state that you hate AMD and want them to fail and lied to make their "freakin-sweet" Phenom system to look bad, all while taking money from VIA to promote their latest C7 cpu... :)


RE: What about?
By Charlie Demerjian on 8/1/2007 2:53:24 PM , Rating: 5
"I stated this several times already. The images on DailyTech were definitely canned - someone sent them out in advance. The same person, on behalf of AMD, sent them to other places as well."

What do you mean by canned? Taken at the show from the same boxes I took pics of and sent out? If so then you are 100% right.

"This contact stated that no media would have these images, since pictures would be prohibited during the event."

I have no insight into this, so I won't comment.

"Additionally, when I requested details about these CPUs and systems, I got no response from AMD over different channels. In some cases I actually got a denied response."

After comments like "Afterall, we're still dealing with the same company that wrote the book on simulated benchmarks.", do you expect them to bend over backwards for you? That said, _IF_ that is true, I would have done things differently in their shoes.

"If that's inaccurate, misleading and wrong then it bewilders me what the correct response is."

Well, where to begin. Lets start out with:
"They did not let media take their own pictures of the demo systems"
You stated it as past tense and fact, but above you say:
"I'll preface this by stating I was not at the show, but I was not completely out of the loop either."
This is disingenuous at best, you have a habit of stating things like you were there when you were not, and possibly only got the information from a press release. You did the same at the Griffin launch at MPF with your Moore comments. You were not there either, I was.

That is misleading.

Then you say "Nor would they disclose what speeds the demo systems were running at."

Again, another flat out untruth. There was a sign above the machines that said in no uncertain terms "3 GHz" and below it" AMD Phenom Quad-Core Processors for Desktop". I would post a pic, but I only have half the sign in one frame. (semi-edit: I have it on my phone, but the metadata will not line up with the camera shots) Plastering it on a poster above the system, putting up system properties, and letting people do just about anything they want to the machines short of installing foreign software isn't enough for you? What do you want, a frequency counter? A rack of oscilloscopes?

Again, this is dead wrong. You were not there, and you state things like they are facts when they are not, and are easily disproven.

More on this. "In addition, my contact at the show was there the day before Mr. Demerjian, and emailed the images found on DailyTech and several other publications the day before."

Two curious facts on this one. First, the show was half a day, there was no 'day before me'. I assume you mean Anand and Larry Barber meeting with Intel and having a few minutes with AMD after that. Anand and Larry are your contacts at the show even though neither was at the show? Curious that.

On top of it, the mailings the day before is a complete fabrication. The pics on your site and others were mailed AFTER my story was posted, I got there early took the pics, and posted the story.

The person who took the pics forgot his camera (mistakes happen, I have done it too) so I lent him mine. He took the pics and sent them out, AFTER my story went up. If you want the metadata on the pics, I would be happy to provide them.

You are factually and provably wrong here, yet you persist in repeating it. You could have checked the facts with me or anyone else who went to the show, but it appears that you didn't even do that for the follow up. You have my email, you probably have my phone number, and I have never not given you any info you asked me about. Why not even try now?

"What can I say other than my information with this regard was second hand? "

How about "I was wrong and I keep repeating incorrect information to save face?".

To wrap it up, where did I, or AMD say it was a production part at launch? I know about the roadmaps, and I know it isn't on there. It was not purported to be either. No one made the comment to me that it was a production imminent part, and most went out of their way to say that it was not.

Why you keep going back to this baffles me.

In any case, may I suggest you stop trying to dance around the issue, you posted many things that were not true in an authoritative fashion. Pants down around ankles, time to move on. You take a lot of glee in calling other on errors, time to take your lumps.

You can either move on or keep putting out half assed attempts at explanations, and I will keep responding to them. That said, this is boring, I do have better things to do.

-Charlie


RE: What about?
By grenableu on 8/1/2007 3:03:01 PM , Rating: 1
-> "That said, _IF_ that is true, I would have done things differently in their shoes." <-

Wow someone from the Inquirer accusing others of fabricating facts? Would that be considered "irony", or would simple old "hypocrisy" fit better? "Inquring" minds want to know!

-> "You take a lot of glee in calling other on errors, time to take your lumps" <-

I think I'm sensing a background motivation for your attack. Did DT call you out over some mistake in the past? If so relax. Pretty much everyone else in the industry has done the same to you guys, its not like it should be anything new.


RE: What about?
By johnsonx on 8/1/2007 4:00:01 PM , Rating: 2
As I posted above, the simple explanation:

Isn't it possible that on the day Kubicki's source was there, AMD restricted access to the hardware exactly as described, but on the next day when you were there, AMD had decided that there was really no harm in letting the press look more closely at the machines?

This seems most plausible to me, as I presume both accounts to be true.


RE: What about?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/1/2007 5:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is disingenuous at best, you have a habit of stating things like you were there when you were not, and possibly only got the information from a press release.

Please enlighten me here.

I won't identify my sources for you, but feel free to keep tossing names out.


RE: What about?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/1/2007 5:06:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On top of it, the mailings the day before is a complete fabrication. The pics on your site and others were mailed AFTER my story was posted, I got there early took the pics, and posted the story.

Well now I'm sure you're either delusional, lying or both.


RE: What about?
By James Holden on 8/1/2007 5:27:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You take a lot of glee in calling other on errors, time to take your lumps.

Oh I see what this is about now. Pride in creating internet drama leads me to believe Kris a lot more than you Charlie.

I'd be shocked to learn every news item you've ever written included your graced presence at an event. I don't even see why that is an issue, considering the things you're bickering about. I don't see anything with his article, and his comment was just that - a comment.

I went on the inquirer today to look up the story you posted. Right on the front page:

quote:

AMD grabs Intel PR guru
I hated you, now I love you
By Charlie Demerjian


At least Kris pretends to not chose sides! You guys keep knocking them dead over there.


RE: What about?
By EndPCNoise on 8/1/2007 10:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
Mr. Demerjian,

There is clearly no conspiracy here, and I don't see why you are so upset with Kristopher Kubicki.

However, if anybody has a shady character here recently, it's AMD. Less than one month ago, George Ou over at ZDNet.com, along with help from Kristopher Kubicki, exposed AMDs grossly, phony Barcelona benchmarks posted on AMD's own website. There is a whole series of articles at ZDNet.com's website documenting this:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=570
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=569

AMD was forced in all it's shame to pull down the phony benchmarks off its website due to this said investigation. (Ironically, this all followed AMD's crying out over Intel's benchmarks, and then taking the high road saying they would not do the same.) AMD also said they would put up truthful Barcelona benchmarks to replace the phony benchmarks. Well, it's nearly a month later now, and we are all still waiting to see AMD's truthful benchmarks on their website.

Kristopher Kubicki also played a big part in exposing Microsoft's xbox 360's RRoD shenanigans, which forced Microsoft to finally admit fault and issue the extended three year warranty.

Where were you Mr. Demerjian on exposing AMD's phony benchmarks? More importantly, why don't you question the lack of any benchmarks for AMD's Phenom demo? <suspicious> That demo had a quad core Phenom cpu clocked at 3.0 GHz and three HD 2900XT's in crossfire mode. One of the HD 2900XT's was for physics, taking even more load off the Phenom cpu. With this kind of setup, I would think AMD would be bragging about their benchmarks. Ironically, AMD chose to withhold any benchmarks. Don't you find this to be even a little suspicious? Why, as a journalist, did you not investigate this further <suspicious>, and instead you chose to attack Kristopher Kubicki's integrity?

Do I need to remind you that it is the duty and the responsibility of journalists, such as yourself and Kristopher Kubicki, to investigate these types of stories to inform and protect the consumer? Freedom of speech ring a bell?

Mr. Demerjian, I don't know what it is you have against Kristopher Kubicki, but he is a good journalist, who is working hard to expose large corporate wrongdoing and protect the consumer. You sir, and a few others here, should be ashamed for attacking this man's integrity as a journalist the way you have.

Now, go on and do what you do best, fondling AMD's Phenom.


RE: What about?
By crystal clear on 8/2/2007 2:21:09 AM , Rating: 1
I am very happy to see you respond in this forum & state your case as you see it & think & feel about it.

The best part of it being that you dont use those wierd usernames you rather choose to use your own name as the username !

I commend you on this.

Now all said & done ,I feel this sledging should stop !

Ok both misunderstood each other,both have their own versions & stick to it,both insist that their version is the correct one etc etc.

I think you should focus on the subject matter namely Tech, & leave those minor differences behind & forget about it & move ahead.

You have your style of writing & so does K.K. so be it-

instead of pride & prejudice I would say lets have a

working relationship, simple as that.

I personally would like to see you ! often commenting on subject matter/article under discussion on D.T. sharing your thoughts & views on the subject.

Let your approach be constructive/positive/friendly-people here will appreciate you rather than despise you.

I think it will do a lot good than bad.

Give it a try-you did now -you can do it again-this time in a more constructive/positive/friendlymanner.


RE: What about?
By Moishe on 8/1/2007 11:26:01 AM , Rating: 2
funny, I haven't seen claims of unethical behavior, and I haven't seen lies. What I see are statements about the way things were setup at the Phenom demo. You take from the statements what you will, but as long as they are the truth I'm cool with the statement. Each person's unique perspective may be skewed, but that is certainly something that readers like yourself have to take into consideration. You're not responsible for my words just as I am not responsible for yours.

One of the things you have to realize is that you may see an implication where one does not exist. An implication usually has intent behind it and it seems clear to me that the Phenom article was not intended to imply that AMD was faking. There is a fine line between implication and simply wanting the reader to have all the facts. Knowing that AMD would not allow the media to take pics or see the system specs are pretty important details.


RE: What about?
By Kef71 on 8/4/2007 5:17:51 AM , Rating: 2
IDF 2005.

http://www.geek.com/next-gen-intel-chip-benchmarks...
http://www.computerbase.de/news/hardware/prozessor...

Simulated benchmarks where provided for a dual core Yonah and Sossaman.

/Kef


very mature....
By Genocide on 8/1/07, Rating: -1
RE: very mature....
By Anh Huynh on 8/2/2007 12:07:47 AM , Rating: 2
Your post wasn't deleted. People just rated it down. We never delete comments.


What a joke
By Genocide on 8/1/07, Rating: -1
RE: What a joke
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/1/2007 5:07:31 PM , Rating: 2
I'm kind of curious if you even read the article. The "buddy" of mine was someone acting on behalf of AMD.


RE: What a joke
By Treckin on 8/3/2007 10:26:52 PM , Rating: 1
here, i thought this might clear up some of the disagreements...

Not taking sides here (although is I had to, KK is the man, fuck the Inq and their pack of lies :) )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7EZmYth6TM


RE: What a joke
By Treckin on 8/3/2007 11:22:09 PM , Rating: 2
heres another from BEFORE the conference...
http://www.hardspell.com/english/doc/showcont.asp?...
someone stole some picks.... look at the date, and notice that the rig is only running 2 gpu's...


"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Related Articles
AMD Reveals Phenom Model Numbers
July 28, 2007, 12:19 AM
AMD Demonstrates 3.0 GHz Quad-core
July 26, 2007, 4:40 PM
Welcome to 2007: "Simulated Benchmarks"
July 4, 2007, 5:47 AM
botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki