Author: Slater Wold
Date: 08:24:58 05/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
One of the features of the Asus mobo that I like the best, is the ability to turn off 1 CPU, to make it a single CPU system. This also turns off a LOT of the SMP crap that would slow a single CPU system down. Not everything, but a LOT. In my post, I clearly stated that my benchmarks and Sandra results were BETTER than any I have seen posted at Toms Hardware, Anand, or any other website. Therefore, that leads me to believe that my system is running fairly good. Perhaps I am mistaken. On May 28, 2002 at 10:22:07, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 28, 2002 at 10:05:33, Slater Wold wrote: > >Slater i agree with you that the Asus motherboards are great >motherboards. All kind of features etcetera. > >However if i compare my asus dual P2/P3 motherboard with a stupid >incompatible dual supermicro motherboard which has a stupid bios, >then the supermicro P2/P3 motherboard provides up to 20% faster memory >access tan the dual P2/P3 asus motherboard did. > >Note that duals are slower than the fastest single anyway. > >In case of testing a program single cpu, the dual machines are >a very bad testing environment, because they do all kind of stuff >to prevent parallel problems. This means in general that testing >a program single cpu at a dual system is not a good idea, especially >with K7 parallel chipset, which is known slow. > >On the other hand, a friend of mine, Ron Langeveld, he has a single >cpu mainboard with 2-2-2 muskin ram and a 1.73Ghz K7, and it kicks >the hell out of the tests you show, even with the same executable! > >Regrettably some programs which hardly get profiled, like crafty, >they depend a lot upon memory speed. > >At bob's quad which are only 700Mhz processors and where memory >goes in PARALLEL, this is simply no problem. Bob doesn't have a K7, >and doesn't like AMD much, otherwise i'm sure he would have bought >a dual K7 already some time ago and would have found the bottleneck >soon. > >133Mhz FSB is simply dead slow and a deliberate marketing choice >from AMD in order to let their new cpu's look even faster. > >I read now that the hammer is going to be 30% faster with memory >latency, that's going to kick butt of course for crafty. > >Direct 10% speedup for free, which currently means a lot for >specbenches. > >Apart from that we'll see i guess at the end of the year a new >release from visual c++ which will hopefully perform up to 50% >better for AMD processors when talking about speed. > >For diep, the FSB speed is not such a major issue as i get less >nodes a second. So in short for every million cpu instructions which >diep executes, it is doing MORE with the processor than other >programs. Crafty needs way more memory lookups in the same million >cpu instructions. > >That means bigger dependancy upon the FSB speed. > >You can blame bob for this, you can blame AMD for having a small FSB, >which logically means that streaming data is always faster on intel >(like 3d video rendering, of course AFTER installing a decent >graphics card with the latest drivers) > >Personally i care not so much for this difference in busspeed, but >it is obviously a 'we can produce it cheaper now and look even >faster next time we release a cpu' decision from AMD. > >Fact that at specint2000 the extra 256KB L2 cache of the newer northwood >is pretty important for many programs, that tells more about programs >being too much dependant upon main memory, than it says something about >the P4. > >>On May 28, 2002 at 08:26:16, Aaron Gordon wrote: >> >>>Slate. I was only 'hostile' due to poor testing methods. When you start >>>comparing things that aren't comparable (for example, P4-SSE2 FPU vs AthlonXP >>>straight fpu, no SSE/3DNow) then you are providing deceiving results. Would it >>>be fair for me to compare a K6-2/300MHz's FPU using 3DNow! to a Pentium3 500 w/o >>>SSE? For you.. maybe. I would never do such a thing however. It misleads people >>>who don't know any better and is downright bad testing. The same goes for >>>Quake3. You and I both know a Tbird 800MHz on a good board providing proper >>>memory bandwidth can get more fps than 139. The same thing goes for >>>encoding/decoding. Without a good motherboard the CPU or anything else can't do >>>much good unless the benchmark/test is 100% cpu biased. Encoding/decoding gets a >>>nice boost from faster memory. Whats bad about it is the 'good' boards I am >>>talking about are only $80-100. Why not grab one and retest? I can call you and >>>tell how what to setup in the bios, which via 4in1's to use, which detonator >>>drivers to use & etc. Then you will see a monster come alive.. >> >>#1.) I am using the best dual board out there. The Asus AMD Dual board. There >>is NOT a better motherboard (for duals). Period. (In the BIOS, I have the >>ability to disable 1 CPU, which I did for these tests.) >> >>#2.) I am using some of the best memory money can buy. Samsung PC2100 >>registered sticks. >> >>#3.) I was using ALL the updated drivers for EVERYTHING. From the chipset to >>the damn USB driver. I spent almost 3 hours alone downloading all the newest >>drivers for both computers. >> >>#4.) The BIOS settings on the AMD are just as you have described. >> >> >>The settings in this test were PERFECT Aaron. I am not asking you to believe >>me, but I am telling you, IT IS SO. I made sure MYSELF. >> >>Go to Tom's Hardware, or Anand, and compare my Sandra results to theirs for an >>AMD 1.73Ghz. Mine are actually faster. Come on man, I am not an idiot. These >>systems were setup fine. The 139 fps for the AMD surprised me too, it's a shame >>the GF4 wouldn't work in the P4, I get a 2x+ result with it using the AMD. But >>XP didn't want anything to do with it, so I was forced to use the GF1.
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.