Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 22:34:38 11/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 29, 2002 at 00:03:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... I find it very hard to believe not a single person in that entire university has an AMD cpu. Anyway, reguarding the 1.7x speedup. I haven't tested it with MSVC6/7 so I can't say what sort of speedup it has. I do know for a fact (and has been testing on numerous occasions) that you can get 1.7x with the Intel C compiler. As far as hyperthreading goes.. I highly doubt it's going to have a massive positive impact on performance. This is what it would take to swing Intel into the lead. I've seen results putting applications with hyperthreading enabled 15% slower to 15% faster than without hyperthreading. Granted it may help crafty a little, however it's going to take a lot more than that to to get any sort of P4 to keep up with a dual MP2600/2800+ setup. From my projections in an earlier message even a 2600+ will be able to best a dual P4-3GHz setup. Here is the message I was talking about.. perhaps you'll remember. >I don't think it's fair for you to find the slowest possible binary for the AMD >and some IntelC5 binary and then claim that the speedup is slow. I don't think >it's fair either if someone takes a slow binary for a P4 and compares it to a >fast binary for an AMD cpu. >You seem to conveniently forget the benchmarks I've done and other people here >have done. Take a look at my latest graph of crafty results: >http://speedycpu.dyndns.org/crafty/craftybench4.jpg >Note: the P4 2.76GHz is an overclocked 1.8A northwood at 153.5fsb(614MHz >RDRAM). > >Now, the SMP binaries I have are able to produce a 1.7x speedup in the >benchmark. You claim the P4's get 1.8x, thats fine. Take the P4-2.76's result >(1,120,011 nps) and multiply it by 1.8. You get 2,016,019.8 nps. Not too >shabby, >right? Well.. take the 1.86Ghz XP and multiply it's nps by 1.7 and you get >2,035,330.1. Still faster. Now, if you're saying, "Well yadda yadda is >overclocked and etc etc". Yeah, and even faster things will be released here >shortly. I can guarantee the P4-2.76 w/ 614MHz RDRAM would be as fast or a hair >faster than a standard P4-2.8. The AthlonXP at 1.86 would be more around a >2300+ >if such a thing existed. > >Moving on to the future.. P4-3GHz will soon be released as well as the 2800+ >(being announced on October 1st). Lets do some rough guessing. If a P4 gets >1,120,011 nps @ 2.76 it should get about 1,217,403 nps at 3GHz and thats >probably still having the RDRAM clocked to insanity. Take the 2.52GHz AthlonXP >@ >1,578,197. At 2133MHz (AthlonXP 2600+) it should do about 1,335,831 nps. Again >do 1,335,831 * 1.7 and 1,217,403 * 1.8 and you get: >2,270,912.7 nps for the dual XP 2600+ (2.13ghz) >2,191,325.4 nps for the dual P4-3GHz. >Since Crafty is pretty linear you know these numbers are very close to the >actual results. So far from what I've seen Pentium4's need an entire GHz more >and twice the L2 cache just to come close. This is what I call a $500 keychain.
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.