Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 13:18:48 12/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2002 at 14:07:16, Christopher A. Morgan wrote: >Thanks for the posts. I do know that the AMD XP line model numbering is not in >GHz, but is an attempt to be equivalent to the Intel GHz classification of their >line of P4 processors, and that bus speed is very important in overall speed of >the processor in all applications. I must have forgotten that in my post. Actually the model number compares to the earlier Thunderbird chips. An AthlonXP 1500 is theoretically equivalent to a 1.5 GHz Thunderbird. (A 1.5 GHz Thunderbird will mop up a 1.5 GHz P4.) Based on my knowledge of the processors in question, I don't think this rating system is at all accurate. (A 1.6 GHz AthlonXP 1900 is equivalent to a 1.6 GHz Thunderbird in most cases.) >That being said, the difference in speed, AMD processors being faster, is still >considerable for chess it seems. This is in contrast to the standard bench >tests done by Tom’s hardware comparing the latest AMD XP and Intel P4 >processors. There seems to me to be a disconnect somewhere. Why would XP be so >much faster in nps compared to P4 in a chess program, but be slower in almost >every other bench test comparisons? There is also considerable evidence that Tom's Hardware is either biased or stupid. (I've for years claimed the latter.) Most hardware sites do a poor job overall of benchmarking, mostly because the people who run them don't understand how a processor works. The best I've seen is a poor regurgitation of diagrams and schematics that Intel and AMD release. Additionally, most synthetic benchmarks show better P4 results than you get in the real world. Most benchmarks get optimized by Intel engineers. AMD as a company does some of the dumbest things, one of which is that they don't extend their hand into such matters. As a result, the benchmarks are going to show excellent P4 performance because they're optimized for P4. Most optimizations required for P4 also help the Athlon, but it is still possible to extract even better performance out of the Athlon. I would have to question the relationship between fps in Quake and nps in chess. I see none, and I fail to see how Quake demos can possibly benchmark anything other than Quake performance. In the real world, AthlonXP at a given rating is faster than the P4 at the equivalent clock speed on the same bus. That was a complicated sentence, so here's an example: AthlonXP 2800 (133 MHz FSB) is faster than P4 2.8 GHz (133 MHz FSB) AthlonXP 2800 (166 MHz FSB) is much faster than P4 2.8 GHz (133 MHz FSB) The tests -I- would like to see include the following: 1. P4 3 GHz (133 MHz FSB) vs. AthlonXP 2800 (166 MHz FSB) 2. P4 3 GHz w/HT (133 MHz FSB) vs. AthlonXP 2800 (166 MHz FSB) 3. Dual-P4 3 GHz w/o HT (133 MHz FSB) vs. dual-AthlonMP 2400 (133 MHz FSB) 4. Dual-P4 3 GHz w/HT (133 MHz FSB) vs. dual-AthlonMP 2400 (133 MHz FSB) These are all stock configurations, and they represent the best offerings from Intel and AMD. It is quite expensive to build systems with those configurations, but it should be possible to extrapolate the results given enough tests on other systems. -Matt
This page took 0.03 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.