Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:22:55 02/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2003 at 21:56:03, Brian Richardson wrote: >On February 16, 2003 at 19:08:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 16, 2003 at 16:50:48, Brian Richardson wrote: >> >>>I have been running some informal Itanium2 tests with Tinker and Crafty (18.15). >>>The results are not encouraging. I know Bob Hyatt has posted better numbers for >>>Itanium2, but I can’t come even close. Then again, I am no professional >>>compiler developer or performance engineer. Anyway, here is the data (Knps). >>> >>>Intel IA64 Itanium2 (1GHz) dual CPU system vs dual AMD 1900+ (1.6GHz) >>> >>>Crafty18.15 1 CPU 2 CPUs SMP Speedup >>>IA64 368 715 1.94 >>>AMD 615 1015 1.65 >>>IA64 Slower 40% 30% >>> >> >> >> >>That looks horrible. What compiler, etc? IE the best results I have seen >>come from the microsoft in-house compiler guys. Even a 1ghz processor should >>be faster than that using a raw PIII at 1ghz... > >That is the point. Most of use do not have access to Microsoft and Intel >compiler experts. I used the free IA-64 compiler updates from Intel and >Microsoft at: >http://www.intel.com/software/products/compilers/downloads/cwin.htm >http://www.microsoft.com/msdownload/platformsdk/sdkupdate/ > Can't offer much advice since I don't have one, but it is pretty strange that the 1ghz Mckinley is less than 1/2 the speed of a 600mhz 21264 alpha, which does suggest something is badly wrong... >> >> >> >> >>>x86 binary >>>on IA64 170 337 1.98 >>>IA64 Slower 72% 67% >>> >>> >>>Tinker >>>IA64 260 >>>AMD 330 >>>IA64 Slower 21% >>> >>>x86 on IA64 103 >>>IA64 Slower 69% >>> >>> >>>Note that the 2 CPU SMP efficiency for the Itanium2 system is significantly >>>better than the dual AMD system, as has been reported before. >>> >>>Also, note that both the Intel and Microsoft Itanium2 compilers produced >>>different results, depending on debug (no optimization) vs optimization modes. >>>Also, I could not get Crafty to compile with the Intel compiler, and some Tinker >>>routines broke the Intel optimizer. Moreover, the Intel compiler produced code >>>about 5% or so faster than the Microsoft compiler for Tinker. I was not able to >>>get profiling to work, nor did I try Vtune. >>> >>>The results are more or less in line with the SPEC CPU2000int results for Crafty >>>(see www.spec.org), some of which are (run times in seconds): >>> >>>Hewlett-Packard Company hp server rx2600 (1000 MHz, Itanium 2) >>>186.crafty 128 >>> >>>Advanced Micro Devices Epox 8KHA+ Motherboard, AMD Athlon (TM) XP 1900+ (CPU >>>MHz: 1600) >>>186.crafty 106 >>> >>>Intel Corporation Intel D850EMVR motherboard (3.06 GHz, Pentium 4 processor with >>>HT Technology) >>>186.crafty 86 >>> >>>Advanced Micro Devices ASUS A7N8X (REV 1.02) Motherboard, AMD Athlon (TM) XP >>>2800+ (CPU MHz: 2250) >>>186.crafty 76.3
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.