Author: Slater Wold
Date: 13:42:43 05/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
Yes yes Vince. Everything is compiled for Intel. It's a big fucking conspiracy. Vince, using the SAME version of Sandra, I got BETTER results than Tom's or Anands ON AMDs using different mobo's. Not Intel vs AMD. But AMD (mobo) vs AMD (mobo). Which is what I thought we were talking about. Get on the same page dude.......... On May 28, 2002 at 15:00:00, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 28, 2002 at 11:24:58, Slater Wold wrote: > >please checkout specbench.org for their benchmark on >this motherboard. it's like 20% slower than a few epox >single cpu mainboards with the same processor!!! > >>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. > >well but it is comparing apples with pies. If you take default sandra >bench then it's using optimizations which favour intel hardware. > >If you would recompile it for AMD you will see AMD is doing pretty well >on it. > >Theoretical the bandwidth of RDRAM is much higher than from DDR ram, >and on paper the intel cpu's are better in bandwidth. > >However, some practical experiments from AMD, which were repeated by >several experts with same outcome, they showed that the maximum bandwidth >they could use was in fact higher with AMD-ddr ram than with P4 + RDRAM. > >Pretty amazing to me, but they were not beginners who did it. > >I have to admit that in past times i also made huge mistakes comparing >the different processors. For example at some Sun processors i tended >to use the gcc compiler to compile my applications with. > >Now that was *not* smart. > >Also using gcc at the 21164-633Mhz didn't do much good for DIEP either. >The native compiler appeared to be lightyears better. > >IN time we all learn... ...but my feeling says that for computerchess >in future times AMD will remain pretty fast. > >Intel is not focussing upon making a good processor, instead they >focus more upon 2 different things > a) a 'cheap' p4 processor which is not so fast but is very > high clocked and which is having fast FSB and such things, > small but very fast L1 cache, fast L2 cache etc. In short > favouring streaming data programs a lot. > b) a very expensive highend processor which focusses upon specint > and especially specfp. The specfp estimations from several > hardware experts of the mckinley are *real* high. Way above > what the cheating Sun-art, IBM and alpha teams *ever* got. > Even if only half of all this is true, then for each Mhz the > McKinley will be a major killer, ALSO for specint programs > such as crafty. > >On the other hand AMD is focussing upon puttin gcheap processors >on the market where they save money on FSB (or the follow up of it) >and save money on faster L1 and L2 caches, but the performance of >the processor itself is completely killing away all competitors at >the PC market, which for DIEP is of course the only interesting >thing. > >Also i expect that end of this year we get great windows compilers >on the market for the AMD processors. > >> >>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.