On 06.11.14 16:31, Warp wrote:
> What I think he's trying to say here is that compiling POV-Ray 3.6
> normally did not produce a slower executable on AMD, therefore the
> official binary had to be compiled on purpose to be slower on AMD
> by some other means.
>
> (Of course that's not what happened, at least not on purpose, but
> this is what I think he's trying to say.)



the POV-Ray team was saying then, the 3.6.0 version of the test was compiled 
in a manner that tilted the competitive landscape towards Intel." he clearly 
says we lied back then. In most jurisdictions this would constitute libel. 
But the website is hosted in the US ... and given he clearly has no idea how 
a compiler works (admitting he needed help with that), he probably doesn't 
even know what he is talking about. Any person with a computer science 
background will, as you pointed out, notice that he doesn't use the right 
terminology and hence doesn't know what he is talking about. Still, it is 
frightening that such people get to publish articles these days - 15 years 
ago he wouldn't have been able to connect to internet, now he writes about 
computer technology and thinks he is an expert. Oh well :-(

Thorsten

Post a reply to this message