Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 19:58:27 05/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
Vincent, I promise I will pay you $1,000,000 (one million dollars) if you'll point me to the Fortran program in the SpecInt2k. Regards, Eugene On May 09, 2002 at 22:45:33, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 09, 2002 at 12:51:22, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >Eugene, > >being in the compiler team you know the BS you write below. >specint is not only crafty. it is also outdated Fortran programs >where a bit of smart optimizing compilers have the edge. > >In fact some engineers recently managed a SEVEN times speedup >of a particular program. > >In short the P4 is a complete joke from computerchess viewpoint >and business applications, with exceptions of the source code >you can get in your hands. > >I need to note that the beloved intel c++ compiler is creating >completely illegal code with certain optimizations which i see >getting used at the testsets for your beloved P4. > >Let's focus upon computerchess. There is a major joke the P4, >even if it gets clocked to 10 Ghz. > >Let's not discuss even getting more than 1 thread running on >a single P4 processor. Another insider joke, which amazingly >is getting sold as getting the processor 20% faster, though >AMD is also busy with that for now nonsense marketing hype ;) > >>Sorry Vincent, you are as always only partially right :-) >> >>Let's look at the SpecInt2k number. It's geometric mean of the 12 *real-world* >>integer programs, one of them is old Crafty version. >> >>Best SpecInt2k for AMD I was able to found on www.spec.org is 720 base / 749 >>peak for Athlon XP 2100+. Best official Pentium 4 result is 819 base / 833 peak >>for 2.4GHz processor. Unofficial (not yet submitted to SPEC) result for Pentium >>4 2.53GHz is 882 base. >> >>So, for mix of real-world programs, Pentium 4 is definitely better. You can >>compare results yourself: >> >>http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2002q2/cpu2000-20020422-01326.asc >>http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2002q2/cpu2000-20020401-01279.asc > >>Of course YMMV. You can be unhappy person who need to run the application that >>is slow on Pentium 4. So let's look at the individual result: Crafty on P4/2.4 >>runs 123 seconds. Crafty on AMD/2100+ runs 98 seconds. I.e. ~25% slower. > >You're doing statements math wrong. > >1.25 + 2.4Ghz/1.73Ghz = 1.734 ==> 73.4% faster is the AMD a Mhz. > >Even more than 70%! > >>Definitely less than 70% you are writing everywhere. >>My prediction is that with the widening clock speed difference (caused by design > >With 73.4% difference at 'widening clock speeds' and knowing 0.13 micron >K7 is nearly in the shops, let's assume end of this year they reach >2.53Ghz too with the K7 0.13, just like the P4 0.13 is hitting 2.53Ghz now >too. > >Assuming lineair performance (which isn't true, not for K7 and not for >P4 either, so in fact it must be even a faster cpu, we just calculate >a bound here): > 2.53 Ghz 0.13 K7 x 1.734 = 4.4Ghz > >So the P4 needs to get released over 4.4Ghz to beat a K7 at 2.53Ghz >assuming lineair extrapolation. Reality is of course that it's more like >6Ghz than it is 4.4Ghz. > >See the problem for the P4 in the future? > >The 3.5Ghz is announced for start of 2003 to get on the market. >Realistically before the end of the year we'll have a 2.2Ghz K7 >though at the market. > >3.5Ghz P4 / 1.734 ==> 2Ghz > >So if at the time the 3.5Ghz P4 is released, the AMD factories >released a 2Ghz K7, then you again have a problem. > > >>decisions Intel made during P4 development) we'll soon see P4 that runs Crafty >>faster than any shipping AMD processor. > >I don't doubt you find another few sneaky optimizations that speedup >crafty. In fact from my head i already know some routines which if >ported to assembly will give crafty 10% speed boost. > >Starting up their own compiler team was of course a very smart decision >from intel. It's giving the intel processors a boost in the same way >the 'supercomputer processors' in the past looked better than they >were. > >One thing even the best compiler team can't take away is a bottleneck >like a 1024 word L1 datacache of the P4. > >That's a row of 32 x 32 words or so. Real little in nowadays computing! > >Anyway, glad i'm not in your situation. Must be impossible to build an >even better compiler version for the intel hardware than it is doing >now, only program specific optimizations are possible now :) > >>Eugene >> >>On May 09, 2002 at 00:35:10, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On May 08, 2002 at 03:19:50, Slater Wold wrote: >>> >>>any big company in USA has a dude lurking around here. >>>computerchess is in specint2000 remember? >>> >>>apart from that many people are interested in computerchess. >>> >>>big chance about 10 people check regurarly here who work for m$, >>>about 3 i could mention from head who might work for intel. And >>>another one if i remember well AMD and the list goes on. >>> >>>Whatever happens, support from intel is great compared to >>>AMD for example. Yes AMD is the superb processor, no doubt. >>>Even a good 'cheating' compiler (cheating in the sense that >>>it isn't trying any trivial thing to get fast on the AMD K7 >>>processor) which cheats by about 10%. >>> >>>Despite that, they still get kicked butt by AMD processors. >>> >>>If you however consider the good support from their helpdesk, >>>the fact that they can press a 2.53Ghz sticker onto the new >>>northwood whereas AMD only can stick a 1.73Ghz sticker on the >>>2100MP (which somehow nowhere can be bought yet in europe like >>>the 2.53 northwood can't get bought), the fact they have >>>their own compiler, then you know they last forever. >>> >>>AMD still has to develop their own compiler, or they will >>>go run behind soon. >>> >>>any P4 news doesn't interest me much till they fixed the 8KB L1 >>>cache (the reason why the processor sucks is also the reason >>>it can get clocked so high i guess, well that's the opinion >>>of a layman). >>> >>>real interesting though is the mckinley. Many people at intel and other >>>big companies speak about it. So far not a single testresult reached >>>me from it. DIEP in this respect isn't even most important. I already >>>know pretty well how diep is going to do on it when i know the speed >>>of crafty on it at a specint test. >>> >>>AMD will get nowhere at 64 bits world till they have their own compiler. >>> >>>>I got an e-mail tonite. From Intel. That's a first........ >>>> >>>>Perhaps there are eyes on us everywhere! >>>> >>>>It was from a "Systems Engineer", telling me how to setup a 2.53Ghz machine >>>>*correctly* and that I should have no problems "..beating any AMD CPU on the >>>>market, overclocked or not, running any "optimized" program.." >>>> >>>>I checked the e-mail, it's valid. He stated that he would "..appreciate my >>>>cooperation in keeping his name, and this e-mail, as quiet as possbible.." >>>>Well, I guess this is as quiet as I can keep it. ;) >>>> >>>>Aaron, he told me they were hitting 300+ fps with the setup he described to me >>>>in the e-mail, using a GeForce3 Ti500. He told me using a GeForce4 Ti4600 or >>>>the Quatro4 would probably net gains near 30+ fps. You getting anywhere near >>>>this number? >>>> >>>>He also told me that P4's have always been geared towards multimedia. And that >>>>it didn't hurt his feelings that AMDs were beating the P4s in "chess >>>>applications". He stated, and I quote, "If AMDs audience is those who require >>>>good numbers running their chess applications, well, that's good news for >>>>Intel." >>>> >>>>I have no doubts this guy is for real. And I will setup this system as he has >>>>"instructed". Whoever turned me in, thanks! ;) >>>> >>>>To quote a movie, "We now have corporate sponsorship." :D
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.