Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:03:32 11/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2002 at 23:11:02, Aaron Gordon wrote: >On November 28, 2002 at 20:05:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 27, 2002 at 16:57:52, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >> >>>On November 26, 2002 at 11:06:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On November 26, 2002 at 08:28:26, Brian Richardson wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 26, 2002 at 02:28:19, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 25, 2002 at 17:37:29, Brian Richardson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On November 25, 2002 at 16:29:39, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On November 25, 2002 at 16:00:56, Brian Richardson wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On November 25, 2002 at 14:33:16, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On November 25, 2002 at 10:19:13, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On November 25, 2002 at 02:45:35, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On November 24, 2002 at 23:10:44, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On November 24, 2002 at 15:06:55, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On November 24, 2002 at 14:25:47, Joachim Rang wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On November 24, 2002 at 14:19:06, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On November 24, 2002 at 13:15:09, Bob Durrett wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On November 24, 2002 at 11:49:07, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.specbench.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2002q3/cpu2000-20020909-01635.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Didn't someone say RDRAM was bad for chess? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bob D. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But is still faster than any single processor available with any other memory. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Pichard. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Athlon XP 2600+ is 17% faster: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.specbench.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2002q3/cpu2000-20020812-01551.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Really, I must be blind. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Pichard. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>And faster still is the Athlon XP 2800+: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2002q4/cpu2000-20020923-01691.html >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>You are still missing the point here: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Did you check how many CPU(s)were enabled: = 1 for this test, I did NOT see >>>>>>>>>>>>CPU(s) enabled: = 2 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Pichard. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Both of guys provide examples with 1 CPU enabled. When I do likewise, I'm >>>>>>>>>>>somehow missing the point. Okey-dokey, I think I can live with that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Sorry, I meant to say all of you missed the point, but at the same time when >>>>>>>>>>only 1 CPU is enabled, the Intel can not compete with any Athlon XP 2600+ or >>>>>>>>>>higher. Now if AMD release a Dual 2400 MP, it will beat the @#$+ out of Intel >>>>>>>>>>higher Xeon. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Pichard. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Actually, just the opposite has been shown for 32bit AMD >>>>>>>>>(e.g., slower than dual Xeon). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Brian >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Probably for the Dual 2200+ but NOT for the upcoming Dual 2400+ MP >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1747&p=10 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>And >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1747&p=12 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Pichard. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Multiprocessor performance is highly application dependent. >>>>>>>In this case, AMD does much worse with chess applications >>>>>>>(regardless of clock speed), than Intel. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Thus, while the benchmarks cited above are meaningful, they >>>>>>>only apply to the workloads being tested, which have little to do with >>>>>>>computer chess. >>>>>> >>>>>>Just wait until AMD release the Dual 2600+ MP, and install Deep Fritz on one of >>>>>>this baby and compare it against a Dual Xeon 2.8 Ghz. >>>>>> >>>>>>Pichard. >>>>> >>>>>I will always bow to the data, but based on results so far, dual AMDs have >>>>>a scalability efficiency of about only 1.4x (where 2x would be ideal). >>>>>Dual Intels are at about 1.8-1.9x, at least for good SMP code (like Crafty's). >>>>>This more than makes up for individual AMD CPUs being somewhat faster than >>>>>Intel. I would expect any 32bit AMD to be about the same, due to memory >>>>>bottlenecks. This is not an issue for more general workloads. >>>>>The 32-64x Hammers should do much better. >>>>>Brian >>>> >>>> >>>>If you read the "underground analysis" it would seem that this is going to get >>>>worse. The new AMDs are supposed to have a built-in memory controller on the >>>>processor chip. Unfortunately, it is now known that it is an inferior >>>>controller compared to late Intel offerings. The question is, how is AMD going >>>>to respond? The answer is unknown, but if they don't, they will get their >>>>clock cleaned (again). >>> >>>Again ? The heck you say ! Go to Tom's hardware. Also as for as I know a P4 is >>>much inferior to AMD's performance clock vs clock. >>>Thanks >>>Wayne >> >> >>That has nothing to do with what I said. AMD implemented a single-channel >>memory controllor. Intel is now using dual-channel... And their memory >>bandwidth is steadily going up while AMD is stuck with the design they chose >>for the moment... >> >>Whether their CPU is more efficient or not is one issue. But clearly their >>duals are significantly worse than Intel's duals... more so than their single >>cpu speed advantage can cover for... > >Nforce2 is dual-channel DDR board for Tbird/AthlonXP's/AthlonMP's (single cpu). >Also as I've said in the past (and proven, look for the messages I've posted if >you don't remember for some reason) the dual AMD systems running with a 1.7x >speedup can beat any of the P4's even with the P4's having a 1.9x speedup. > >Also, I don't doubt you're a talented programmer, teacher, etc. However. If >you're going to test something please make sure to test it properly. I'm not >trying to be 'mean' or anything like that. I am a perfectionist though and it >really bugs me when I see something done improperly. Dual AMD systems with >Crafty can get a 1.66-1.70x speedup, not the 1.4x you're always posting. If >you're going to test something why not do it right? Thats all I'm asking. _I_ didn't test it. I don't own a single AMD machine, nor do any of my labs at UAB have a single AMD processor. I rely on people like Eugene, and since he has no vested interest in either chip, and since he is working on the microsoft visual C compiler project, I assume that he knows what he is doing and that his results are correct. I've not seen anything to contradict the numbers he has posted (1.4X the raw NPS using duals compared to single cpu...) I _did_ run tests on the intel boxes, and reported those results as did Eugene... > >If you're a teacher in a university you should be able to ask around and run one >of the binaries I compiled on a dual AMD system one of the students own. As I said, I have no AMD machines of my own. I run labs with over 200 machines, no AMDs at all. No students in my classes own AMD processors. I don't believe I can say any more... If you >want to compile it yourself I can give you the compiler options I used and >profiling methods. Now, Slate and I have already done that but if for some >reason you need to see the numbers produced directly infront of you then what I >stated above is a completely viable option. As far as the best AMD beating the best Intel, I don't personally believe it yet. I have a dual 2.8ghz xeon on the way. Let's compare when they arrive, with everything wide open including hyper-threading. I don't believe the AMD machines can keep up, personally...
This page took 0.01 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.