[Intel-gfx] [ANNOUNCE] xf86-video-intel 2.8.0

[Ben Gamari]

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 05:25:48PM -0700, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> On 2009-07-31 19:12-0400 Ben Gamari wrote:
> >In sum, it is not Intel's responsibility to teach Mr. Larabel about the
> >limitations of microbenchmarks (even if it might do their brand some
> >good).
> 
> I would agree with you if the PTS were proprietary, but it is not.  My sense
> is the PTS provides a framework for any tests users or companies want to put
> in there.  I further agree with you it is likely some bad tests have gotten
> in, but the Intel guy's are free to improve that situation.  They are also
> free to follow your advice and refuse to add decent test to the PTS which
> then perpetuates the current situation which I don't think anybody likes.

Fair enough. I was using "responsibility" in the strictest sense of the
term. I will pass no judgement on whether it might be in the best
interest of Intel to inform the Phoronix folks of the shortcomings of
their practices. However, I think it would be best if the general public
would simply pay no heed to their reporting (although I recognize this
isn't realistic).

> 
> I also prefer Intel developers to spend most of their time on developing.
> However, I also agree with you that benchmarking is part of that development
> deal.  Where we differ is you seem to think it would take lots of developer
> time to set up an automated system for both the benchmarking and publishing
> the benchmark results. Whoever is right on that, the important point is it
> is essentially only a one-time cost followed by very small on-going
> maintenance costs (if the automated benchmarking/publishing system were set
> up right). 

I actually entirely agree with you. I think an automated benchmarking
protocol is entirely necessary. I had interpretted the original
statement as meaning manual benchmarking. My bad.

> I also view the resultant good publicity for Intel as a nice side
> effect, but not the principal goal which is to identify speed
> problems/improve stability with lots of standard and open tests that
> interested users (e.g., the types like me that lurk on this list) can run
> for themselves to compare with Intel's best test results.

Sure, this is certainly reasonable.

Cheers,

- Ben