"Intel aurait aussi fait pression sur certains éditeurs de benchmarks..."

PCMark en est un bon exemple -> http://tinyurl.com/bezm2h

Le 3e graph montre que lorsqu'on modifie le CPUID du Nano "CentaurHauls", par "GenuineIntel" ou par "AuthenticAMD", la bande passante mémoire du Nano n'est étrangement plus la même.

"PCMark 2005's memory subsystem test doesn't appear to be aware that Nano supports SSE2 and SSE3, and is instead running a decidedly less-optimized code path."

"In 1999 after AMD released its Athlon CPU and again in 2003 after AMD released its Opteron CPU, Intel lost its technological edge in various segments of the CPU markets. Original equipment manufacturers ('OEMs') recognized that AMD's new products had surpassed Intel in terms of performance and quality of the CPU," reads this morning's complaint from the FTC. "Its monopoly threatened, Intel engaged in a number of unfair methods of competition and unfair practices to block or slow the adoption of competitive products and maintain its monopoly to the detriment of consumers. Among those practices were those that punished Intel's own customers -- computer manufacturers -- for using AMD or Via products. Intel also used its market presence and reputation to limit acceptance of AMD or Via products, and used deceptive practices to leave the impression that AMD or Via products did not perform as well as they actually did."


http://www.betanews.com/article/FT...1261014794

C'est vrai qu'il est étrange que rien de tout ça n'ait jamais été révélé par aucune publication depuis tout ce temps.
Soit, je suis moi aussi euphorique à l'annonce de cette énorme gifle qui claque bien fort et laissera je l'espère une belle marque rouge bien longtemps en pleine face des cette société répugnante.