Zealot
I quit My Job for Folding
We have lambasted the SysMark products for their unrealistic workloads, but their scoring methods are equally atrocious. Instead of scoring each task on its own and weighting them according to usage model criteria, an individual task's importance depends on how long it takes to complete!
That's right, a task's contribution to the final SysMark2002 score is entirely derived by how long it takes to execute!
For example, a 3d rendering test that might take one second to complete would only contribute one tenth as much to the final SysMark score as a ten-second task that consists of loading an application. Moreover, tasks are often repeated many times in SysMark, skewing a particular workload even more.
Why implement such a bizarre scoring scheme? Because it naturally biases the entire benchmark towards large working sets...
...which demand memory throughput
...which is one of the Pentium 4's few strengths.
And it also allows particular tasks to be weighted more heavily through repetition.
This is not merely a bad scoring strategy, it is intrinsically biased.
-------------------------------
Trying to understand why this scoring discrepancy existed, the chipmaker discovered that when comparing SysMark 2001 to SysMark 2002 the following patterns were evident:
Tasks were removed that favored AMD.
Tasks were added that favor Intel.
Workloads that favored Intel were repeated -- sometimes many times -- to inflate their weight under the scoring scheme described above.
An example of this is the Adobe PhotoShop component of SysMark. In the 2001 version of the BAPCo/Intel product, 13 different filters were used. On eight of these 13 filters the Athlon XP 2000+ beat the 2GHz Northwood P4.
However, in SysMark 2002 every single one of these eight filters where removed -- again, tasks where the Athlon XP beat the Pentium 4 -- and were replaced with repeated filters that the Pentium 4 executed faster than the Athlon XP.
Fonte: http://www.vanshardware.com/reviews/2002/08/020822_AthlonXP2600/020822_AthlonXP2600.htm
Voltamos aos tempos do Willamette ou quê?
That's right, a task's contribution to the final SysMark2002 score is entirely derived by how long it takes to execute!
For example, a 3d rendering test that might take one second to complete would only contribute one tenth as much to the final SysMark score as a ten-second task that consists of loading an application. Moreover, tasks are often repeated many times in SysMark, skewing a particular workload even more.
Why implement such a bizarre scoring scheme? Because it naturally biases the entire benchmark towards large working sets...
...which demand memory throughput
...which is one of the Pentium 4's few strengths.
And it also allows particular tasks to be weighted more heavily through repetition.
This is not merely a bad scoring strategy, it is intrinsically biased.
-------------------------------
Trying to understand why this scoring discrepancy existed, the chipmaker discovered that when comparing SysMark 2001 to SysMark 2002 the following patterns were evident:
Tasks were removed that favored AMD.
Tasks were added that favor Intel.
Workloads that favored Intel were repeated -- sometimes many times -- to inflate their weight under the scoring scheme described above.
An example of this is the Adobe PhotoShop component of SysMark. In the 2001 version of the BAPCo/Intel product, 13 different filters were used. On eight of these 13 filters the Athlon XP 2000+ beat the 2GHz Northwood P4.
However, in SysMark 2002 every single one of these eight filters where removed -- again, tasks where the Athlon XP beat the Pentium 4 -- and were replaced with repeated filters that the Pentium 4 executed faster than the Athlon XP.
Fonte: http://www.vanshardware.com/reviews/2002/08/020822_AthlonXP2600/020822_AthlonXP2600.htm
Voltamos aos tempos do Willamette ou quê?
