Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:57:40 12/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2002 at 09:08:10, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On December 09, 2002 at 16:18:48, Matt Taylor wrote: > >>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 > >Matt i don't know it for crafty or other crap products. Crafty as we >see in test needs less nodes when running MT=2, I realize this is hard for you to do, but is it _possible_ that you can stick to _real_ data when you post? The above is _absolute_ crap. Crafty does _not_ "need less nodes when MT=2". In some positions, yes, but in more positions it needs _more_. And for the average case it needs _more_. I don't know why you continue to post something that any person here can refute simply by running the code. I've done it for you many times. The above is false. Please find something _else_ to wave your hands about. >so is no good of a standard >here. Also it is doing 2 probes in 2 different hashtables which i cannot >do even in DIEP (too slow for me) i do 8 probes in 1 hashtable sequential >(so a good bandwidth is helping diep more than it is crafty for example). > >My own testing at the machines you mentionned, with exception of the >3.0Ghz P4, i found that for the newer generation P4s the speed >difference is only 1.5 for 133Mhz versus 133Mhz bus. What in the world does that mean??? > >Of course comparing 166Mhz bus is no good idea, as i do not know a single >dual that can run 166Mhz bus. > >Obviously this is without possible wins by SMT, but as we see, even a buggy >crafty only profits 13-16% from it. Not the 33% by nalimov. We do not know >when nalimov's chip gets on the market. Perhaps in 2005. He is having probably >beta versions. The 2.4Ghz Xeons here do not have SMT at all. His ones have, >so my conclusion is he has a beta version. What is "a buggy crafty?" And what is the 13-16%? I posted _real_ data. You post fantasy without even having access to a box? And that is fact??? :) > >He reports like 30%+ speedup or something. All tests indicate not even 15% >on average for the buggy crafty. > >I conclude he has a newer SMT build in into the CPUs. > >This could be true, because the sold P4s initially didn't have any working >SMT at all (see my own and tests of others). > >The current 3.0Ghz P4 on paper has it and so far the testreport posted >with it here is the only test i have with it as i didn't get myself a >chance yet to test several programs at it. I posted results for a xeon 2.8ghz dual with SMT... So it is not made-up data and it matched Eugene's data pretty closely and will probably get a bit better after I get the "pause" issue resolved better... > >For DIEP the new P4s are a lot faster than the old ones. I concluded that >DDR ram mattered a lot. DDR ram as we know has a 2 times faster latency >than quadpumped 100Mhz RDRAM (which is sold as 400Mhz). > >Of course also 1066 RDRAM won't matter much. this is quad pumped 533/4 = >133 Mhz ram. At most 33% faster than the 2 times slower 100Mhz RDRAM. > >But whether it is improvements in the chip or ddr ram, the difference is >'only' 1.5 now. > >that means the clockspeed of a K7 you must multiply by 1.5 to get >the equivalent P4 for me. > >So a 3.06Ghz P4 when run single cpu will perform like a >3.06 / 1.5 = 2.04Ghz K7 > >So you can test till you are blue and yellow. You don't need to >test at all. > >Even SMT giving 10% or so won't get that P4 faster. 33% faster RAM >won't get the cpu 33% faster. > >It is trivial that the AMDs will clock when they are 0.13 to nearly >the same speed like the P4s are. > >And the good thing from those AMD processors is that i can put them >in my dual K7 most likely (the MP versions of it), whereas for a >P4 dual Xeon i need to buy a completely new system. > >RDRAM 1066 is pretty expensive here. >Let me check: > 256MB PC1066 RDRAM = 239 euro at www.informatique.nl > >Next time i buy RAM i don't want 256MB though. I want 3 GB ram. > >I do not see how much 2 x 512MB + 2 x 1 GB RDRAM dimms cost and >for dual Xeon i need to buy also ECC registered RDRAM i bet. Not for mine. I have ECC but non-ECC was an option from Dell, so that's YABB (Yet Another Bad Bet) on your psrt... > >Meaning probably a lot more than the quoted 1 euro a MB dimms. > >Now let's look to DDR ram. Even cas2 DDR ram 256MB is like 78 euro >here. > >Over a factor 3 times more cheaper. > >Now i will not complain about a price soon, but if something is faster >and cheaper i know what i buy. > >For me price is not most important simply. But that being faster is. > >Doesn't take away that intel is doing better than i had thought 6 >months ago they would do. > >The difference in performance is a lot less than it was for DIEP. > >Best regards, >Vincent
This page took 0.02 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.