Nvidia, AMD, and VIA quit BAPCO over SYSmark 2012

Personally, I have never used SYSmark, so it's a bit difficult to have an opinion on this. Something tells me there's a problem, though, if three big companies like Nvidia, AMD and VIA decide to stop supporting the benchmark.

To be continued, I'm sure ...

BAPCO has turned into a bad joke, so bad that Nvidia, AMD, and VIA just quit. Yes, that leaves Intel as the only semiconductor maker still in the consortium, and there is a good reason for this.

The short story is this, BAPCO makes the SYSmark series of benchmarks, and several others. SYSmark in particular has been long seen by everyone but Intel as a joke, it is so skewed that it is laughable, it really doesn’t measure anything but Intel or non-Intel CPUs. With the release of SYSmark 2012, things got even worse.


In the end, BAPCO and SYSmark 2012 is now an official shame, not just one in name only. Anyone using it seriously should be immediately suspect for both motives and technical awareness. If a salesperson comes to your company and mentions the suite, you know who they are pushing, it is that bad. For some reason, BAPCO itself is going to great lengths to keep all this quiet, I wonder if that was an open vote too? One thing for sure, the silence is deafening.


Belgium Massman says:

Follow-up commentary from AMD: http://blogs.amd.com/nigel-dessau/2011/06/21/1006/comment-page-1/#comment-603

United States Hondacity says:

i hope hwbot works something out with amd :D

Belgium Massman says:

Lol. Shervin Kheradpir is both president of BAPCo and Director of Intel performance benchmarking. Of course things went wrong.

Christian Ney says:


United States Hondacity says:


Canada Vinster says:

oh that's good.... Vin

India $$Lionking$$ says:

lol!! :D

Belgium Massman says:

Nice editorial on this subject: http://www.tgdaily.com/opinion/56803-analysis-the-death-of-bapco-and-sysmark For all we know, Intel might just wanted SYSMark to die off. Change to the benchmark would mean that AMD might have gotten closer to the leading seat, which is not good for Intel. Well, just speculations of course. The message of the editorial is plain and simple: if you don't agree on the definition of what a 'good benchmark' should measure, it's not a good benchmark. It's pretty much what FM is getting into too, I guess. The latest VGA benchmarks are quite biased towards CPU multi-threading whereas most games only scale with CPU frequency. Vantage P was a bit too crazy on the CPU part, 11 P might be a tad different (although thread-scaling is still there). //edit: I'm not trying to insinuate the same stuff is going down at FM too. At least they an independent company, BAPco was ... ehr, not really.

Please log in or register to comment.