Printable View
Saw this on OcUK forums(had to edit the last bit of the picture due to an inappropriate sentence):
http://i.imgur.com/ypFMZ3Z.png
http://i.imgur.com/ypFMZ3Z.png
Can,anyone from Hexus confirm this??
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads...#post-38753453
This was quoted in the AT forums but not sourced:
Found the original source:Quote:
pmurphy8811 1 Day ago
It's upsetting to have to say, but should be said. As an IT Director I have already been approached by an Intel representative to discuss the "special promotions" and "Incentive rebates" that they are willing to offer me for purchasing exclusively Intel powered servers. I was not well received when I explained that I would not be purchasing anything until I see the benchmarks of the new Ryzen (naples) core and compare the cost-to-performance ratio. It was at that point they made it very clear that they would go to great lengths from a financial standpoint to incentivize me to NOT purchase AMD chips.
These are the tactics that were used back in the day that AMD had feared would be used again. Intel offered "loyalty rebates" and other clever promotions to hide the fact that they were paying customers to lock out the competition. I sincerely hope that other IT Directors and all in IT in general do what's best for the industry and choose based off of what's best for the consumer and their environment. The rebates are nice and all, but if we continue to hurt AMD for a small rebate, we destroy AMD's ability to compete and enable Intel to continue their "Tick-Tock" releases and oppressive pricing.
Be aware folks, Intel is scared and is already looking to use their weight and $'s to NOT out innovate, but to obstruct competitions ability to enter the marketplace. Why else would they be contacting and attempting to "Incentivize" customers well before the launch of AMD's server chips in Q2-Q3?
Sorry for the rant, but these past few years from Intel have been terrible from a pricing and tech innovation standpoint. I would hate to see AMD get the shaft after building such a great product over the last 5 years with the help of Jim Keller and AMD architect Mike Clark. They did such a great job turning the CPU division around it should have the ability to be judged on its own merits and not locked out by Intel to prolong the CPU stagnation in the market.
https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-fea...ryzen-reprisal
If true, it really does seem like a repeat of Intel's tactics in mid 2000s.
Remember, they settled out of court at the time which means they never were found guilty by a competition authority like the EC unlike Microsoft. Point being, that once found guilty a repeat offence can be dealt swiftly, whereas by the time EC or someone investigates and decides to prosecute and Intel appeal etc. a decade could be gone and anyway what is a $1 billion or so fine, if during that time they've made $10s of billion in profits?
I wonder if anyone from Hexus can comment on this??
Well to be fair, techsites might be reluctant to say anything. So many places are too friendly to companies these days.
While advertising revenue etc. has always been a big factor, magazines used to have writers like Guy Kewney in PCW who would write rather jaundiced pieces not sub-servant to any advertiser. That's rather rare these days.
Maybe tech journalists need a Techwiki leaks?
I wonder if this explains the change of tone in Linus Tech Tips...
They seemed kinda excited about it and generally very positive. and then in their most recent WAN show video they were talking about all the useful features of the Intel CPUs (Such as extra PCIe lanes, quad channel memory, brought up a rumour of issues when running very fast memory)
I think that it's completely fair that they talk about these things, but at no point did they say, "But the average user doesn't need any of these things" which to me seems a little bit odd.
Edit:
I guess the first thing we should ask is: "HEXUS, do you have any confidentiality agreements or NDAs in place with intel?"
because if they do have something in place, then legally then they might not be able to disclose whether or not they were asked to review Ryzen in a certain way...
Makes me even keener !
Me too. The email will only make Intel look bad in general, attempting to meddle in the review process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phage
Just seen this:
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/56440/...gin/index.html
Intel already cutting Core prices.
Sounds a bit too tinfoily to me.
This is an easy rumour to start and it's from someone known for talking nonsense.
Definitely one for the tin foil hat brigade unless a more reputable source says something.
All sounds pretty run of the mill to me :(Quote:
Originally Posted by EndlessWaves
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=intel+monopolistic+practices
This is quite a good article about what happened last time: https://www.extremetech.com/computin...es-against-amd
Now that is about a 1B Euro fine that took a decade to get through the courts including appeals. So about 100M euros a year, I wonder if that came out of Intel's marketing budget or just pocket change?
It's fairly standard practice to "brief" the press about "preferred testing methodology" for one's own products. It'd be a little unusual to do it for a competitor's product, but I certainly wouldn't put it past Intel. Given the figures AMD have come out with ahead of launch for Ryzen - rather cunningly using benchmarks that are popular with reviewers - we've got a fairly good indication of what the benchmarks are going to look like if Ryzen is put up against Intel's comparably-specified and much higher priced HEDT processors.
I'm sure Intel would much rather see Ryzen compared against the i7 7700k, making the argument that it's the closest priced chip to the R7 1700 and the AM4 platform is more comparable to s1151 than s2011. Get plenty of lightly threaded tests in that review and Intel are going to come out looking a lot better. AMD spent a lot more time comparing Ryzen 7 to the 6800k/6900k in their launch event which I'm sure is meant to persuade reviewers to use that as their primary comparison, so I could totally believe that Intel's marketing and PR people may have got on the phone/email to suggest to reviewers that perhaps that's not the fairest comparison...
I cant see hexus responding publicly, its just not worth risking their relationship with such high profile companies.
Will be interesting to see the independent reviews and if anything smells a bit... fishy.
Yes, don't get the tin foil hat comments at all. Surely only people with very short memories who've forgotten Intel's priors for this kind of stuff would not take any sign of Intel doing what they did before as a bad trend.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
A court case takes so long and the fines are so small that it is very much worth their while. Since they just pissed $billions on 'contra revenue' and other things to unsuccessfully break into the mobile market, I'm sure the ARM players will be happy if Intel's attention is elsewhere but of course AMD could not withstand a $10 billion onslaught which is what this ExtremeTech article estimates to have been the total:
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...-mobile-market
Of course, it is possible that this is not even sanctioned at the top level of Intel just sales people with commissions etc. taking it upon themselves. And even if it were to go to the top, I'm sure there's no internal paper or email trail to prove that.
I think I know how the reviews can be swung - lots of software with AVX2 and lots of oldish games and not newer games people will play.
This is OFC assuming AMD gets at least to Haswell level IPC for gaming.
As I said, it's an easy rumour to start.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
I can't think of another CPU company that the rumour would stick to, Intel only have themselves to blame.Quote:
Originally Posted by EndlessWaves
I can predict what some review sites will do - they will try to "sell" that the AMD memory controller is "weak" by trying to show how high the Core i7 7700K one can be overclocked more and then ignore the X99 ones. The thing is Intel only officially supports 2400MHZ DDR4 anyway on KL- AMD is really no different in that regard. Last time I checked a 2400MHZ memory controller being pushed to 3400MHZ(AMD tweeted this) is not weak.
The same goes with clockspeeds - they will quietly ignore that the X99 CPUs don't overclock that high. They will push the narrative to the Core i7 7700K instead of the Core i7 6850K and Core i7 6900K,which the R7 1800X is targeted towards at close to £500.
Other areas where they will try to warp things - use CPU power consumption and not system wide power consumption. Ryzen is an SOC,so it will consume more power as a CPU I expect,but probably lower as an entire platform.
How would they measure CPU consumption? For graphics cards you can mess around with risers, but CPU sockets are a bit more complex
It's not that difficult, you can measure the heat output of the CPU under various workloads and calculate how much energy it consumes from there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlucine
We definitely need more competition in the cpu and graphics card markets, drive down these insane prices a bit.
Talk about needlessly complicated and error-prone...! Measuring heat output accurately isn't exactly straightforward, and a CPU is not a 100% efficient heat pump.Quote:
Originally Posted by XlucineHow would they measure CPU consumption? ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
However, you can fairly easily follow the motherboard traces and work out which power pins the CPU is drawing its power from (hint: on a modern motherboard is virtually all comes from the CPU power socket). And sticking a passthrough connector onto a 4-pin, 8-pin, or even the 24-pin sockets on a motherboard is a doddle. You can then, completely accurately, measure the amount of DC power being drawn through the various conductors.
Or if you want to increase the complexity slightly, you attach sensors at the 'fets for the CPU power phases.
Basically, there are loads of ways to directly measure CPU power draw that are way more accurate than trying to back-calculate from the waste heat generated by CPU load.... :rolleyes:
If you're using a pass-through for the motherboard cables then you'll get RAM, southbridge, etc power draw as well. Traces would work, but sods law sez that they're probably buried in the motherboard layers. Basically, I'm prepared to eat hat if anyone manages to separate CPU power draw from motherboard power draw to made the ryzen SOC look bad
You can follow the traces to check which conductors power what. AFAIK RAM power is mostly drawn from the 3.3v lines, and many other peripherals use the 5V lines. I believe that in most motherboards practically all CPU power is drawn from the 4 or 8 pin CPU 12v connector. Don't forget that, for the 24pin motherboard connector, you can attach meters to individual pins to determine the current/voltage passing through them. So it should actually be pretty easy to isolate just those connectors that power the CPU power phases. A detailed tech manual for the motherboard in question might even give you all that info without having to try to follow mobo traces.... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlucine
As it is, the power draw for a couple of USB ports and an NVMe slot shouldn't be so dramatic as to make the power draw from Ryzen significantly worse than any extant Intel platform, and most reviewers use at-wall system draw anyway - either on its own or in conjunction with socket/slot power draws...