looking for CPU-specific developer's benchmarking

25 Mar 2005 8:07 PM

Bob

I use www.hardocp.com to monitor the rivalry between Intel and AMD,
especially when I'm about to buy a new machine. They have a lot of benchmark
data, but none specifically for a developer. I would like to find some
Intel/AMD comparisons for

- DotNet development performance
- DotNet end-user application performance (especially WinForms GUI)

The only information I currently have I have gleaned from my own experience:
the latest Intel mobile processors absolutely kick ass running DotNet
applications; and all modern Intel processors have HyperThreading which
allows me to actually do other things while I'm waiting ~3 minutes for a
large set of projects to recompile.

Unfortunately I have no developer-specific information on modern AMD
processor performance. Would anyone care to share personal experience, or
know of a site that benchmarks and compares AMD and Intel DotNet
performance?

TIA,
Bob

25 Mar 2005 8:55 PM

Gerald Hernandez

"Bob" <no***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:%23O0E%23XXMFHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I use www.hardocp.com to monitor the rivalry between Intel and AMD,
> especially when I'm about to buy a new machine. They have a lot of
benchmark
> data, but none specifically for a developer. I would like to find some
> Intel/AMD comparisons for
>
> - DotNet development performance
> - DotNet end-user application performance (especially WinForms GUI)
>
><Snipped>...

I don't know of any myself.
However, given that publishing this information is in direct violation of
the EULA for the DotNet Framework, not sure why anyone would want to
announce they are providing it.
It would seem that Microsoft has identified Benchmarks as something
extremely important to them and don't want anyone passing this information
around.

GH

25 Mar 2005 11:15 PM

Bob

"Gerald Hernandez" <Cablewizard@spam_remove@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eTsJC1XMFHA.3760@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I don't know of any myself.
> However, given that publishing this information is in direct violation of
> the EULA for the DotNet Framework, not sure why anyone would want to
> announce they are providing it.
> It would seem that Microsoft has identified Benchmarks as something
> extremely important to them and don't want anyone passing this information
> around.

That's odd. That's really odd. I've never heard of such a restriction in a
EULA before. It seems patently contrary to any concept of fair use. Why try
to deprive customers of such relevant information? Just because DotNet's
compiled code doesn't perform as well as executables generated by some other
non-MS compiler, doesn't mean they have a right to tell people they can't
share benchmarks. Sure MS can threaten to sue the bejezus out of anyone it
chooses to just get its way, but I seriously doubt that a proper trial would
find that that clause - if it exists - has any legal leg to stand on.

Bob

25 Mar 2005 11:54 PM

Gerald Hernandez

Show quote Hide quote

"Bob" <no***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:%23F%23VBBZMFHA.3852@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "Gerald Hernandez" <Cablewizard@spam_remove@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eTsJC1XMFHA.3760@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > I don't know of any myself.
> > However, given that publishing this information is in direct violation
of
> > the EULA for the DotNet Framework, not sure why anyone would want to
> > announce they are providing it.
> > It would seem that Microsoft has identified Benchmarks as something
> > extremely important to them and don't want anyone passing this
information
> > around.
>
> That's odd. That's really odd. I've never heard of such a restriction in a
> EULA before. It seems patently contrary to any concept of fair use. Why
try
> to deprive customers of such relevant information? Just because DotNet's
> compiled code doesn't perform as well as executables generated by some
other
> non-MS compiler, doesn't mean they have a right to tell people they can't
> share benchmarks. Sure MS can threaten to sue the bejezus out of anyone it
> chooses to just get its way, but I seriously doubt that a proper trial
would
> find that that clause - if it exists - has any legal leg to stand on.
>
> Bob

I agree with you.
Sounds like maybe you think I'm pulling your leg.
And I wouldn't blame you, as it does seem silly. But check it out: ;-)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnnetdep/html/dotnetfxredisteula1_1.asp

Take a look at "Additional Rights and Limitations" last bullet.
And this is just a small note. In other versions of the EULA they make a big
point about Benchmarks.
I just can't find a good example at the moment. But I know I've seen them
around. They have even started popping up in the EULA for updates from
Windows Update. Really. It's too silly for me to be making up.