RELATED ARTICLES
News

PCMark Memory Benchmark Favors GenuineIntel over AuthenticAMD

Posted 08/01/08 at 01:21:00 PM |  by Paul Lilly

comment Commentsprint Printemail EmailDeliciousDiggStumbleUponReddit

By now, everyone's aware that Intel has the fastest chips on the market, and with Nehalem getting closer to release, the chip maker's position doesn't look to change anytime soon. But what you don't know is that Intel also has the faster name. Confused? You're not the only one.

Before clarifying, let's first look at how manufacturers label their processors. Each chip contains a processor-specific character string detailing the manufacturer, make, model, and available features. The two common ones you're probably familiar with include GenuineIntel and AuthenticAMD, neither of which can be changed. That's not the case with VIA's Nano processor (CentaurHauls) and it's here where things get interesting.

Looking to expose any irregularities in PCMark05's benchmark results, ArsTechnica ran the suite on a VIA Nano processor and then re-ran the benchmark two more times after changing the chip's CPUID to GenuineIntel and AuthenticAMD. To prevent unbiased results, a point Futuremark touts heavily with its benchmarking program, altering this string shouldn't have any effect on performance. And for the most part it didn't, but ArsTechnica did discover a troubling discrepancy in PCMark05's memory results.

By changing the CPUID from CentaurHauls to AuthenticAMD, the news outlet noted a 10 percent jump in memory performance. Even more surprising, changing the string to GenuineIntel saw memory performance jump up by a staggering 47.4 percent. To eliminate the possibility of user error, ArsTechnica claims to have "benchmarked each CPUID multiple times across multiple reboots on completely clean Windows XP installations."

Before crying conspiracy, the news outlet points out a simple explanation as a likely cause for the irregular benchmarks, and that's sloppy coding. Based on the CPUID PCMark05 reads, it could be disabling various optimizations on the assumption that they're not supported, even if they really are. Even if this is true and assuming ArsTechnica's results can be verified, Futuremark will still have plenty of egg on its face, and it might take more than a software patch to clean it off.

Do you have a different theory as to what's going on?

Image Credit: Futuremark

COMMENTS:
9
TAGS: 
amd, intel, windows, Software, Memory, benchmark, pcmark, genuineintel, authenticamd
comment Commentsprint Printemail EmailDeliciousDiggStumbleUponReddit
COMMENTS
avatarMahUng Mark 09

Submitted by Shalbatana on Tue, 2008-08-05 08:59

 I second the notion!!!

_______________________________

"There's no time like the future."

Login or register to post comments
avatarDude, I apologize, i meant

Submitted by gatorXXX on Sat, 2008-08-02 01:34

Dude, I apologize, i meant 9800 GTX but i was tired and being fecicious. And the game favors nvidia. Look at all the benchmarks. CPU for CPU and comparable GPU's, either CF or SLI or single, nvidia beats ATI 10 to 15 fps in that game + or - no matter what other hardware your running. Point is is that the game only favors nvidia.

 

ThE OnLy wAy 2 pLaY!

Login or register to post comments
avatarI have always thought that

Submitted by gatorXXX on Fri, 2008-08-01 17:01

I have always thought that some or most of these benchmarks favored intel. As you know, AMD is suing intel for purposedly paying off companies to use intel only CPU's. So why not pay off benchmark suites to make thier procs look better?? They have the money! Get a grip fellas, This goes well beyond PCmark.

Like crysis, no matter what hardware you have, you get ok to terrible FPS UNLESS you run an nvidia GPU. Think about the BEST PLAYED on NVIDIA logo. Don't you think that maybe that game is source coded to be optimized only on Nvidia? Sure ATI GPU's will play the game but at terrible FPS unless you run 2 4870's and even then, 1 8800 GTS slaughters them!

All I'm saying is that paying off companies (like companies paying off senators to vote a certain way), has been around since the beginnings of gov't. So this isn't surprising to me. Of coarse they deny and will continue to till someone proves otherwise. But my opinion, Intel and nvidia (ati/amd as well), will pay off anyone it can till it destroys its competition.

 

ThE OnLy wAy 2 pLaY!

Login or register to post comments
avatarstop feeding us lies

Submitted by nerdzilla1130 on Fri, 2008-08-01 20:17

**Sure ATI GPU's will play the game but at terrible FPS unless you run 2 4870's and even then, 1 8800 GTS slaughters them**

no, 1 8800gts can't beat a 4870 or even two for that matter, that would be saying that an 8800gts is faster and more powerful than 2 gtx 280. crysis gets bad fps on every gpu, the gpu is only as good as its cpu counterpart, and crysis is cpu demanding.

don't throw stones unless you have all the facts.

Login or register to post comments
avatarI think MaxPC should just

Submitted by sirphunkee on Fri, 2008-08-01 16:13

I think MaxPC should just buy the company at this point, and release a full suite of PC benchmarks that everyone can use and trust.

...cuz you know nobody would argue the results of MahUngMark '09

Login or register to post comments
avatarEveryone take a deep breath.

Submitted by Skiplives on Fri, 2008-08-01 16:12

I'm going to guess it is a situation unique to the chip tested. Wait till Monday and I'm sure we'll have a more thurough grasp of the issue.

Login or register to post comments
avatarEveryone take a deep breath.

Submitted by Skiplives on Fri, 2008-08-01 16:11

I'm going to guess it is a situation unique to the chip tested. Wait till Monday and I'm sure we'll have a more thurough grasp of the issue.

Login or register to post comments
avatarladies and gentlemen,

Submitted by AndyYankee17 on Fri, 2008-08-01 13:55

ladies and gentlemen, corporate fraud has been called.

 

guess every one has to code their own tools now? or use open source ones?

Login or register to post comments
avatarMakes me wonder which other

Submitted by sinan on Fri, 2008-08-01 11:54

Makes me wonder which other benchmarking tools behave in the same way. Can't trust em now!

Login or register to post comments
RESOURCE CENTER

THIS MONTH's ISSUE
Maximum PC
FEATURE Windows Tips: Find out what works and what doesn't as we test the most commonly prescribed Windows tipsHOW TO Customize and streamline your Windows desktop Core i7 Check out Intel's next-gen chip, up close and personal The Reactor We preview the first production-ready oil-immersed PC
Get your free trial issue

Don't have an account? Register Now! Forgot password?