Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 08:28:45 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 2003 at 21:08:14, Slater Wold wrote: >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. Thats nice but... what exactly is Leen Ammeraal going to do with an Itanium 2? He specifically asked about the FX and P4-3.2EE. I'm pretty sure he is going to want to stick to x86 chips. Sure, the I2 can emulate IA-32 and it does emulate it better than the old I1.. but it is still slow at IA-32 stuff. >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.