Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 22:42:20 06/26/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 2003 at 01:27:19, Peter Stayne wrote: >>In my tests my Athlon XP 2.5GHz beats a P4-3.38GHz, it's close but it does. > >But what about with an SMP rig? A review on GamePC pitting the 2 against >eachother showed the Athlons not scaling well as it increased in speed, probably >due to the RAM speed. Xeon may be a tad faster in w/ lame in dual cpu stuff, I do know singles have way faster bandwidth vs dual systems, and in particular Athlon systems have lower bandwidth vs Xeon systems (that I've seen anyway). This Dual Athlon gets 1.6GB/s in sisoft, my single 2.5GHz gets 3.2gb/s and I think depending on the xeon board, 1.8-2.4gb/s. When I saw a Quad Opteron pulling 10gb/s, I just about freaked.. I knew it would, but it was awesome to see it anyway. :) >>>Thirdly, games. The games I play are based off the Quake 3 engine, which favor >>>the intel chips. >> >>This is because Quake3 doesn't use any SIMD instructions on the Athlon. The >>3DNow! code is non-existant (or broken) and since it detects an AMD chip, it >>doesn't use SSE. I however compiled some AMD optimized dlls for Quake3, and with >>those dlls it allows an Athlon XP 2600+ to beat a P4-3.32GHz, and the XP 2.5GHz >>(even 2GHz/200fsb/400DDR) blows it away... > >I've heard of these a ways back. but have you tried those with RTCW? Also, I was >also looking toward Doom3, perhaps the same bias still holds true (there are >console commands in the leaked alpha for AMD and Intel optimizations), and John >Carmack has stated that the Intel chips were leading performance-wise on Doom3 >(one of the main reason is the intense level of detail demands higher bus >speeds). I think Carmack is partial to Intel, because he hasn't in all of the Quake3 patches done a quick fix in his code, making SSE work in Quake3. Quake3 treats the Athlon like a K6 and tries to use the non-existant/broken 3DNow! code. Also, he wouldn't allow AMD to make an official patch out of my DLLs. Why? One can only wonder... >>>Fourthly, my 3d Studio Max runs much faster on Xeons than MP's. > >>I'll try to test this when I get the chance. In all of my rendering tests the >>Athlon blows the P4 away, in both Povray and YASRT. Also there is a program >>called "Realstorm", which is software realtime raytracing/rendering. The Athlon >>blows the P4 away there too (www.realstorm.com). From seeing some P4-3GHz C >>(200/800fsb) results, and comparing it to my results, the P4 would have to run >>over 4GHz and 263/1050fsb to equal my score. I submitted my results and you will >>be able to compare them (or I can send them to you directly) when realstorm.com >>updates their database. > >Well, all my stuff is in 3D Studio Max. I greatly enjoy using it. It wouldn't >matter to me much how that turns out. > >I agree there is a general bias against AMD out there though. The Inquirer ran a >great (and LONG article) about how the Opterons simply spank the Xeons in all >server benchmarks, but yet, the mainstream media almost completely snubs it. Thanks for running the chess tests earlier by the way.
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.