Author: Slater Wold
Date: 06:36:35 05/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
Aaron, You are under the impression that people actually use computers like you do. Well, you're wrong. People don't make their computers into mad scientist looking experiments just to get them to go 20% faster. People don't take the time to study compilers, or spend the money on compilers, just to make an EXE go faster. 90% of the people who use Crafty, use the EXE from Hyatts FTP site. 90% of the people who use Crafty, use their stock speeds on their CPU. You are the minority here, and I ran MY tests in the way that MOST people would run their programs/hardware. Look at programs like Fritz 7, Hiarcs 8, Shredder. YOU CANNOT MODIFIED THESE PROGRAMS. THEY COME ONE WAY, AND ONE WAY ONLY. AND THE P4 WAS FASTER. (And yet you and Vince COMPLETLY ignored them.) And I *DID* compile a profiled P4 EXE. And it *WAS* faster than the profiled AMD EXE. But I didn't think those were a good benchmark, because MOST people using Crafty do NOT compile their own EXE, or use the EXEs off your website. On May 28, 2002 at 17:26:14, Aaron Gordon wrote: >Sisoft Sandra isn't "the" benchmark for comparing systems. There's no way you >can base it's scores on everything you run. Also, your board IS slow whether >you'd like to admit it or not. It may be a good dual board but those are server >type boards and have next to no tweaking options & the chipset itself is >horrible when it comes to memory speed. Also the fact that it is a dual board >will most likely decrease results further because of the architecture of the >board. Also the Sandra CPU/FPU benchmarks won't tell you if your chipset is >slow. If you want to do any REAL testing get an Epox or Abit board with the >KT266a or KT333 chipset for around $80-100 and retest. This is the ONLY way to >provide quality results at this time. > >With the proper board your system can fly. My old Abit KT7a which is SDR beat >most of the early DDR chipsets. Why? Because the chipset is the best for SDRAM. >KT133a. Somewhere on the order of 97% effecient when it comes to the max >theoretical bandwidth it could provide. Same goes for the KT266a/KT333.. if you >have an older KT266, AMD760, KT133, etc then you are out of luck. Those are very >slow. Around 50-60% effecient. You can whine and moan all you'd like Slate. Just >because something costs much more than something else doesn't mean it's >better/faster. As I set before.. if you're going to do any single cpu vs single >cpu testing you'll need to use an Abit or Epox w/ the KT266a or KT333 chipsets. > >You know the results you provided were unusually low. Instead of trying to >defend those horrid results you should have asked, "What can I do to fix this >problem?". Instead of asking that.. look what you have done. Deceived people. >Posting the AthlonXP FPU nonSSE/3DNow vs P4 + SSE2. This isn't even comparible >yet you put it up there in the results and decided to leave out that the P4 was >using SSE2 while the Athlon was not. Even then the Athlon's bare FPU was just as >fast. ALSO you not using the fastest binaries available for the AthlonXP for >Crafty. I know you can compile binaries just as fast as mine yet you used the >one off Hyatt's FTP. Around 110KNPS faster for me than Hyatts. I think you DID >compile an optimized version and saw the AMD was faster yet decided to use >Hyatt's instead so the P4 can win. Yes, I thought I knew you better than this.. > > >On May 28, 2002 at 11:24:58, Slater Wold wrote: >>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.