A question; does the ASA know anything about benchmaking and the various biases there may be?

The problem is that they didn't say "fastest" - they said "best".

Intel has yet to produce a processor as good as the MC68000, although they long ago beat it in speed by piling on the hacks and heat to produce one of the ugliset chips known to Man.

The 2 core and 4 core Xeons are better. Even Intel must know it is wrong.

Monday's "best processor" is Tuesday's second slowest. That's just the way it is in the processor world.

I remember when intel dominated the market and people whined and moaned.

Then, low and behold, amd saved us all. Cheaper cpu's, but you got what you paid for.

A few years later, very close competition and people still have their hatred for intel. Atleast intel is not buying up my favorite companies and screwing up their downloads page (atitech.com).

I'm sure BMW would be allowed to advertise their cars as the 'best', so why not Intel? 'Best' is a subjective term, unlike 'fastest' or 'most efficient'. Advertising is all about building up your brand; if everything had to be quantified, only one type of car or washing powder would sell.

As I recall, English law allows for (I forget the precise wording) claims that could reasonably be dismissed as advertising hype by a person of average intelligence. Thus "probably the best lager" was never in any danger of so much as being slapped on the wrists. The Intel advert sails a bit closer to the wind but I think that any reasonable person of average intelligence could dismiss that claim as advertising hype regardless of any evidence whether supporting or contrary.

Well... I really don't know how it could be best. No 3DNOW, lower MIPS count if compared to an AMD chip of the same clock rate, supports M$' draconian DRM initiative through their CPU ID thing.

Indeed, it's because of the CPU ID thing I stay away from Intel nowadays.

Well, I guess that's how thing is then.