Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:20:04 11/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 29, 2002 at 01:34:38, Aaron Gordon wrote: >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. > Don't extrapolate. I didn't say "not a single person at UAB has an AMD processor." I said none of the machine in my department are AMD, and nobody I know here has an AMD including students. However, UAB has almost 20,000 employees so I won't begin to speak for them... As far as the compiler goes, I can't comment. Other than to say in every test I have seen, Microsoft's compiler is better. But I don't see how the compiler can affect the single-cpu vs dual-cpu speedup, because the single-cpu number is directly influenced by the compiler, making the "speedup" comparable no matter what happens. You might have a better chipset or motherboard. I don't know. I do know that everyone that has tested (perhaps except yourself) dual AMDs have reported disappointing results, which makes me believe there is a memory bottleneck. The dual 2.8 I have coming has the E7501 server chipset, which I suspect will perform very well with a threaded crafty running two (and four using SMT) threads vs one thread... With SMT on, I expect something greater than 2.0 improvement in raw NPS. But rather than speculate, I'll post some numbers after the box arrivs... >As far as hyperthreading goes.. I highly doubt it's going to have a massive >positive impact on performance. It seems to have a 30% improvement for heavy usage. This includes benchmarks of Crafty, large database query servers, large web servers, etc. There are benchmarks posted all over the internet... 30% is enough to push past AMD... > 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.