Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:16:06 09/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 2002 at 08:35:19, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 26, 2002 at 08:22:14, Jorge Pichard wrote: > >>It is customary for intel to compare a higher clock CPU with a much lower clock >>AMD CPU, for Instance, the latest P4 2.8 Ghz vs AMD XP 2200 Ghz. Sure they give >>creidit to a better memory, but this type of comparison is like comparing Apples >>and Oranges. >> >>http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,104165,00.asp > >Crafty at AMD XP2600+ 2.133ghz Epox 8KHA+ Motherboard and CL2 ddr ram: > 75.5 seconds base run time > >Crafty at 2.8Ghz P4 533Mhz bus and PC800-ECC RDRAM: > 93.5 seconds base run time Yes... But the Intel duals are blowing the AMD duals out of the water, totally.. AMD appears to win the "single cpu war" at the moment. But on the duals (and beyond) they are _way_ behind intel's performance. > >you can see the results yourself for amd: >http://www.specbench.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2002q3/cpu2000-20020812-01551.html > >for intel: >http://www.specbench.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2002q3/cpu2000-20020909-01639.html > >This is the *official* specbench mark. both manufacturers did their best >to produce optimal versions of each product. Intel even uses its own >compiler. Without this buggy compiler (for DIEP it is buggy, i do >not know for others; it gets a lot of nps that compiler at intel >processors but not giving correct evaluations and it is NOT a bug >in diep, i found out in compiler what is the problem as posted >before) they would be again hell slower. > >I am not sure whether Bob has verified whether that compile from intel >is a bugfree compile; whether it plays as good when using big hashtables >like a default compile of visual c++ or even latest gcc version. I have to provide them with several test sets that must match my node counts _exactly_ for them to "validate" their executable. Therefore there is little doubt that their compiler is working fine. I only use the Intel compiler now and it works perfectly. > >Getting a zillion nodes a second doesn't say much about all nodes being >non-random :) > >So reality is that the above result in reality is even more positive for >AMD than it looks like. We simply cannot trust these intel c++ compiles. Sure you can. I have tested the 6.0 release of their compiler exhaustively, comparing various optimizations with a known good executable from gcc 2.95.2, and the intel compiler is producing perfect code from a comparison of the two... > >Best regards, >Vincent
This page took 0.02 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.