Boyd Phelps, Intel's Corporate Vice President of Client Computing Group -- has completely pulled his sneaky avocado toast post and replaced it with this carefully stated missive.
https://medium.com/intel-tech/11th-gen-intel-core-processors-new-architectura... Boyd Phelps has also apparently added a new disclaimer thing to all of his formal Intel informational posts in an effort to combat some of the "lying BS" charges that have been laid out against Intel lately.
Actually, this disclaimer FUNCTIONALLY CONFIRMS all of the charges that it is intended to deflect, that Intel has indeed done these things and fully intends to do them out in the future as well.
It also boldly asserts that Intel has an ongoing right to continue to give out bogus rankings and testing results and to provide this false information to their builders to pass on to the public whenever the heck they want to ......
and I do believe the EU regulators will disagree with this dubious Intel position.
Numerous individuals have already logged complaints in the EU against Intel for this active misleading false advertising campaign on Tiger Lake.
Rumor has it that the EU is squaring off to whomp Intel with some very large fines over this sort of false advertising nonsense --- and mebbe Intel is trying for some "broad coverage butt protection" here based upon this funky disclaimer.
Notices & DisclaimersSoftware and workloads used in performance tests may have been optimized for performance only on Intel microprocessors.
Performance tests, such as SYSmark and MobileMark, are measured using specific computer systems, components, software, operations and functions. Any change to any of those factors may cause the results to vary.
You should consult other information and performance tests to assist you in fully evaluating your contemplated purchases, including the performance of that product when combined with other products.
Performance results are based on testing as of dates shown in configurations and may not reflect all publicly available updates.
No product or component can be absolutely secure.
Your costs and results may vary. Intel technologies may require enabled hardware, software or service activation.
© Intel Corporation. Intel, the Intel logo, and other Intel marks are trademarks of Intel Corporation or its subsidiaries. Other names and brands may be claimed as the property of others."Your costs and results may vary. Intel technologies may require enabled hardware, software or service activation." Boyd, are you saying that unless we pay you service money and let you into our stuff at night so you can fiddle with it, that you are now saying it won't work optimally in the long run?
Or, are you saying that unless we provide rapid internet access to all the tweeked Intel background libraries, the ones that all your dirty AI speed up tricks depend upon, that the dirty AI tricks won't work right out in the future and the "performance" you promised us to get us to buy your Tiger Lake garbage simply won't be there when we need it?
Which is it Boyd? Pick one ......
(or both if both apply) Intel really sux, sorry, Intel just sucks brown slimy ditchwater compared to AMD .....
To have to write a DISCLAIMER like this for your news stories means you ADMIT you have been lying out your ass to the public this whole durn time ......
No product or component can be absolutely secure. Boyd, folks haven't stumbled over the exact issue that prompted you to add this one to the disclaimers listing, but we are all keeping an eye out for it now since you clued us all about it ......
Software and workloads used in performance tests may have been optimized for performance only on Intel microprocessors. This one all by itself has been worth a 10 Million Euro EU fine against Intel in decades past, but seeing all the rest of them all lined up in a row and
knowing several of these are third strikes against Intel means the EU fines may be 10x bigger this time around.
If I were an Intel builder that has been advertising using
these known to be false claims, I'd be afraid that I might be found to be co-defender with Intel under current EU rules.
I would then have to prove in an EU court that Intel had lied to me too, actively deceiving me into transmitting their lies in order to recover the money that I was fined by the EU, getting it in the end from Intel by a separate lawsuit.
Fun, huh?