Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 14:34:43 05/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 2002 at 16:42:43, Slater Wold wrote: Slate get realistic please. For developers like me it is very easy to compile for intel. I get free toys to toy with (machine 1997 world champs i got for free from intel) i get free compilers to toy with. It's not conspiracy. It's hard fact that support of intel is 100x better than AMD will ever get. Result is pretty obvious isn't it? >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.