Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 03:44:36 05/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 27, 2002 at 05:39:40, Slater Wold wrote: But now do the same test with a GCC 3.1 compile using K7 optimizations. All these compilers which compile by default for windows are INTEL optimized. The crafty executable is by default compiled with intel compiler, which is doing horrible on AMD cpu's of course. >Intel. > >Please read the tests, and then read the bottom. PLEASE do *NOT* respond to >this post without reading the bottom. > > >Sandra (latest version, downloaded from http://www.downloads.com): > >Arthmetic: > >AMD 1.73Ghz: > >4787 MIPS >2392 MFLOPS > >Intel 2.53Ghz: > >4863 MIPS >3093 MFLOPS > > >Multimedia: > >AMD 1.73Ghz > >9520 it/s >11084 it/s > >Intel 2.53Ghz: > >9999 it/s >12207 it/s > > >Crafty 18.15 (downloaded STRAIGHT from Bob's FTP): > >AMD 1.73Ghz: > >902662 nps @ 108 > >Intel 2.53Ghz: > >965223 nps @ 101 > >**The P4 version is slower than the standard version.** > >Quake 3 Arena Demo 1 - with sound - using the same exact video card & drivers: > >AMD 1.73Ghz: > >1260 frames at 9.1s = 139.0 FPS > >Intel 2.53Ghz: > >1260 frames at 4.5s = 281.3 FPS > > > >Various Chess Engines (test with Nolot #3): > >Fritz 7 (NO MMX): > >AMD 1.73Ghz: > >1.Bxg5! > ² (0.50) Depth: 15/43 00:02:57 219235kN > >Intel 2.53Ghz: > >1.Bxg5! > ² (0.50) Depth: 15/43 00:02:41 219235kN > > >Fritz 7: > >AMD 1.73Ghz: > >1.Bxg5 Bxg5 2.h3 Bh4 3.hxg4 Bxg3+ 4.Kd2 Qd7 5.Rxh7 Rxh7 6.Bxh7 Bf4+ 7.Kc2 0-0-0 >8.Bd3 > ² (0.50) Depth: 14/40 00:02:15 121119kN > >Intel 2.53Ghz: > >1.Bxg5 Bxg5 2.h3 Bh4 3.hxg4 Bxg3+ 4.Kd2 Qd7 5.Rxh7 Rxh7 6.Bxh7 Bf4+ 7.Kc2 0-0-0 >8.Bd3 > ² (0.50) Depth: 14/40 00:02:05 121119kN > > >Hiarcs 8: > >AMD 1.73Ghz: > >1.Bxg5 Bxg5 2.0-0 Bf4 3.Qc2 Kd7 > ± (0.80) Depth: 12/34 00:01:23 15206kN > >Intel 2.53Ghz: > >1.Bxg5 Bxg5 2.0-0 Bf4 3.Qc2 Kd7 > ± (0.80) Depth: 12/34 00:01:14 15206kN > > >Shredder Paderborn: > >AMD 1.73Ghz: > >1.Bxg5 Bxg5 2.0-0 Qd7 3.h3 Bxf3 4.Qxf3 0-0-0 5.Qf7 a6 6.Qxd7+ Rxd7 7.Kh2 g6 >8.Ne2 Ne7 9.Rf7 > ² (0.59) Depth: 13/26 00:01:24 27302kN > >Intel 2.53Ghz: > >1.Bxg5 Bxg5 2.0-0 Qd7 3.h3 Bxf3 4.Qxf3 0-0-0 5.Qf7 a6 6.Qxd7+ Rxd7 7.Kh2 g6 >8.Ne2 Ne7 9.Rf7 > ² (0.59) Depth: 13/26 00:01:20 27302kN > > >Conclusion: > >This test wasn't based on price, or value, or anything like that. So please >don't post anything about "value". It's not worth much to me. (As anyone who >knows me will tell you.) This was about one thing, and one thing alone: >matching Intels top CPU to AMDs top CPU. Sorry to say, but Intel won EACH and >EVERY test I ran. > >However, to most people, the 10% gain, just isn't enough to warrant $1k. I >completly agree. I would *never* recommend the P4 over the AMD. Because, come >on, who wants to spend $1k more for 10%!? > >And before you start telling me that you can overclock, take a look at Aarons >website. He has screenshots of a 1.812Mhz AMD, and it's only faster in _1_ >benchmark (the arthmetic benchmark). > >AMD 1.812Ghz vs Intel 2.53Ghz: > >AMD > >4977 MIPS \ >2493 MFLOPS / Arthmetic > >9768 it/s \ >11457 it/s / Multimedia > > >Intel > >4863 MIPS \ >3093 MFLOPS / Arthmetic > >9999 it/s \ >12207 it/s / Multimedia > > >And of course the PC1066 memory is almost 2x the speed of his memory in these >tests. > >Every test I ran, every application I ran, was faster on the P4. From encoding >movies, to encoding MP3's or RA. There is no "official" benchmark for these >programs, but the ending times (for MPEG video) were about 30% faster on the P4 >compared to the AMD 1.73Ghz. MP3's were about 15% faster on the P4. > >So, if you want the fastest CPU on the market, well, that's going to be the P4 >2.53Ghz. Because it is, just that, the fastest CPU on the market.
This page took 0.01 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.