Honestly, my point is that benchmarks don't have any real use other than being a very rough approximation of what a given computer is capable of. I don't see any of them as having more value than establishing a ballpark performance range. If the most common benchmarks are skewed towards Intel, then it's an indication that the software industry in general is skewed in that direction.
Look at the whole Betamax versus VHS debate (wow, I'm showing my age here
). Betamax was clearly the superior technology, almost no one disputed this. However, better marketing won out and an inferior technology became the norm. The fact that Betamax was superior had absolutely nothing to do with what you could pick up at the videostore.
As AMD continues to get a greater and greater market share (as they clearly are), more software will be designed that takes advantage of its strengths. If the 64-bit XP comes out and all of a sudden AMD performance blows Intel out of the water, software designers, especially game designers, will jump right on the 64-bit bandwagon, and AMD by association, if that's the best way to realize the game they're trying to make. Companies will design more software that utilizes the better technology, and as software begins to use different features, benchmarks will be modified to reflect this bias, and the prominent benchmarks will gradually become biased more towards AMD rather than Intel, as they are now.
My point really being, if benchmarks indeed are skewed towards Intel now, it's a sign that software in general is skewed that way, too. If benchmarks show Intel chips performing better when a given set of features are used, those are likely the same features that actual available software uses.
The argument isn't really about benchmark bias, it's about industry bias.
Look at the whole Betamax versus VHS debate (wow, I'm showing my age here
). Betamax was clearly the superior technology, almost no one disputed this. However, better marketing won out and an inferior technology became the norm. The fact that Betamax was superior had absolutely nothing to do with what you could pick up at the videostore.As AMD continues to get a greater and greater market share (as they clearly are), more software will be designed that takes advantage of its strengths. If the 64-bit XP comes out and all of a sudden AMD performance blows Intel out of the water, software designers, especially game designers, will jump right on the 64-bit bandwagon, and AMD by association, if that's the best way to realize the game they're trying to make. Companies will design more software that utilizes the better technology, and as software begins to use different features, benchmarks will be modified to reflect this bias, and the prominent benchmarks will gradually become biased more towards AMD rather than Intel, as they are now.
My point really being, if benchmarks indeed are skewed towards Intel now, it's a sign that software in general is skewed that way, too. If benchmarks show Intel chips performing better when a given set of features are used, those are likely the same features that actual available software uses.
The argument isn't really about benchmark bias, it's about industry bias.
I don't mean to be rude, but I just can't understand why anyone would be so emotionally involved with a microprocessor corporation.
You're the troll in these forums, wake up and smell the coffee please! 
