John Hampton, director of AMD's client computing products had a four and a half minute rant on YouTube claiming that Sysmark puts too much emphasis on strict CPU performance.

Hampton cited the recent debacle involving Volkswagen as proof that "information provided by even the most established organizations can be misleading. He didn’t actually come out and say that Chipzilla in bed with Sysmark developer BAPCo, but AMD feels picked on and is saying so.

Hampton said that the results aren't indicative of a system's real-world performance. To prove his point, AMD ran the latest version of Sysmark on a pair of PCs, one powered by an Intel Core i5 processor and the other by an AMD FX chip.

Tony Salinas, an engineering manager and technical marketing lead at AMD, explained the results saying that in Sysmark, the Core i5 system scored 987. But a "comparable AMD platform" running an FX processor scored 659.

He said that getting a 50 per cent difference on a similar chip was astonishing and unrealistic in what real life performance.

PCMark 8's Work Accelerated test, the performance delta narrowed to 7 percent with the same Core i5 system scoring 4,199 and the AMD setup posting 3,908, which was "quite different than the story."

Salinas believes that Sysmark's focus on the CPU is so "excessive" that it's really only evaluating the processor, not the whole system. PCMark 8 probes not only the CPU, but graphics and subsystems too.

AMD ran a set of custom scripts it developed based on Microsoft Office and timed how long it took each system to complete them. The Intel system took 61 seconds to finish the benchmark versus 64 seconds for the AMD platform. This was a difference of about 6-7 percent in line with PCMark 8.

This is not the first time that AMD has sniped at Sysmark. In 2011 it resigned from the BAPCo consortium. AMD points out that the FTC said that Sysmark's tests "may have been optimised for performance only on Intel microprocessors."