Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:03:13 12/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2002 at 10:57:40, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>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.
please read the data posting done here about crafty with mt=2 at a 3Ghz P4
with SMT turned on.
>
>
>>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???
Ah bad memory of you and not 100% clear sentence of me:
1 Ghz K7 = 1.7Ghz P4 (old core with 100Mhz quad pumped rdram versus 133Mhz
memory of k7)
new core (ddr ram especially both 133Mhz now)
1 Ghz K7 = 1.5ghz P4 but now you must see it as 1.6Ghz K7 == 2.4Ghz P4
for DIEP that is.
For WARP it was better than that.
>>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???
No as you can see in the posted data, crafty had a 13-16% speedup at
a single cpu P4 at 3 Ghz with MT=2.
>:)
>
>
>
>>
>>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 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.