Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 16:29:18 09/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 2002 at 11:16:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. for some time now Bob I think Wayne > > > >> >>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 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.