Author: Slater Wold
Date: 18:08:14 12/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
2 things... tabsnet has *no* itanium results. They don't even have a category for it. I have been told that the results from 'Slowpoke' have been verified. And was verified back in March when he originally posted them (because that smoked everyone back then). And since you couldn't see it, I'll spoil it for you, the I2 1.0Ghz did the bench in 11:07. On December 08, 2003 at 20:35:03, Aaron Gordon wrote: >The page is down at the moment for me.. but go to www.tabsnet.com >I don't trust the haveland site as they don't screen the results at ALL. Someone >even posted some fake playstation 2 'mod' running ps2 faster than some of the >higher clocked Athlons.. when in fact the Playstation 2 chip is quite slow, much >slower than the P3-733 thats in the xbox even. > >On tabsnet Enrico's Athlon XP 2525MHz pulled in 2 minutes, 15 seconds for the >"Chessmark". A P4-2.76GHz came in at 3 minutes and 5 seconds (slightly slower >than the 3 minute and 3 second Athlon XP 1.86GHz). The Opteron 1.8GHz? Well, >that came in at 57 seconds. :) > >Now for the "Newmark" povray test... > >Opteron 1.8GHz: 22 minutes, 34 seconds >Athlon XP 2.52GHz: 23 minutes, 46 seconds >Pentium 4 3.45GHz: 27 minutes, 33 seconds >Pentium 4 3.32GHz: 29 minutes, 38 seconds > > >Look at all of the other results.. All Athlon/Opterons in the top score. Now, go >to Haveland and post a bogus result.. it is up there immediately. Try posting >one with Tabsnet, they'll filter out the garbage or make you verify your result. > >On December 08, 2003 at 16:25:49, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>On December 08, 2003 at 14:32:15, Aaron Gordon wrote: >> >>>On December 08, 2003 at 13:08:41, Slater Wold wrote: >>> >>>>On December 08, 2003 at 12:55:36, Leen Ammeraal wrote: >>>> >>>>>I saw the Athlon 64 based >>>>>"PC Vobis Power 64 3200+ XD" (euro 1299). >>>>> >>>>>How does this compare with an Intel P4 3.2 EE ? >>>>>Which would you prefer for chess? >>>>>Leen >>>> >>>>According to http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/CCAM/a64fx_51_launch.shtml, the >>>>3.2EE would be faster. >>> >>>Shame they only tested (except for UT2k3) applications where the P4 does decent. >>>As I said in a previous post.. where is DVD2AVI (where an Athlon does best for >>>Mpeg encoding). It is much faster than XMpeg for me (on my XP). Also, in Povray >>>(a renderer a normal person would use, rather than drop $4000 for one of the >>>ones they use to test) the Athlon is a good 50%+ faster than the P4. In 64bit >>>mode it is something like 3 times faster. The Athlon FX is even faster than the >>>XP. Expecially for chess, which I believe what he was asking about in the first >>>place. >> >>Guess which system is the fastest for Povray? >> >>http://www.haveland.com/index.htm?povbench/index.php >> >>:-) >> >>Thanks, >>Eugene >> >>>Go test Fritz, Shredder, Crafty, etc. on a 2.2GHz FX. You'll see in 32bit mode >>>you'll gain 20-30% over an Athlon XP (which is already faster than a P4 for >>>chess). >>> >>>About PCMark and 3DMark (all made by madonion/futuremark).. they're all bunk. >>>PCMark is biased towards the P4 and now that ATI slapped them with some cash >>>they're biased towards ATI. If you don't believe me, try this. Get a Pentium 2 >>>400MHz (yes, 400MHz) and a Radeon 9700 pro, 9800, whatever. Now, put a Geforce4 >>>ti4600 in a P4-3.2EE, Athlon FX 2.8GHz, you name it.. doesn't matter. The >>>Pentium 2 400MHz will get a higher 3DMark. Why? Well, thats what happens when >>>you dump a ton of cash on a company.. they do what you want. >>> >>>The semi-technical reason why it is like this was something nvidia found out. >>>They found that the way futuremark did the pixel shaders was ridiculous. Adding >>>a specific loop (or something like that, you can search for it on google) that >>>only the ATI chips could do.. and the entire test setup was this crap. In real >>>life, and in any other 3D program the Geforce4 on the faster CPU would >>>absolutely kill the P2-400MHz with the 9700 Pro. This is an example of the crap >>>companies do to fool customers. >>> >>>I've done the testing (P4-2.53 @ 3.32ghz and limited testing at 3.5ghz) for >>>chess and other programs, my Athlon XP at 2.5GHz beat it in 95% of the tests and >>>ALL of the chess programs. An Athlon FX 2.2GHz is 20-30% faster than an XP at >>>2.2GHz, so you can figure it'd be equal to an XP 2.64-2.86GHz.. which is >>>definitely faster than any P4 (even if they clocked it up to 4GHz and more) to >>>date. If you want the fastest, go for this: >>>http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000268 >>> >>>Plus, if you get a P4-3.2EE what do you think you'll be doing when lots of the >>>chess programs go to 64bit, and most of everything else? You'll end up buying an >>>Athlon FX.. the P4 will get smoked even more when 64bit stuff hits the scene. >>>You can get one now and when everything switches over you won't have to upgrade >>>at all. If you do go with a P4-EE you'll just be one of many who wonder why it >>>isn't as fast as the 'review' pages say. >>> >>>If in doubt, test it yourself.. I did.
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.