Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 09:20:46 12/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
>Second, I don't see anything related in the two. A photograph has _no_ >technical content. IE what can you tell by looking at the top of one of my >xeon 700's? Absolutely nothing. He is sloppy, about pictures, data etc... >I think this concept of "amateurs" questioning "professionals" is a bit beyond >credibility. The folks at Tom's Hardware could hardly get away with falsifying >results. I'm sure AMD would be ready to launch a legal action immediately >should they feel wronged. They don't. So the conclusion is pretty obvious. People have been saying for a long time they are having touble reproducing the extemely low numbers he is getting for AMD systems. Either he is incompetent or biased, the site is hard to take seriously in any case. >IMHO of course. > >But you and others that post this stuff about "that can't be trusted" ought to >look at yourselves very carefully. That's _not_ very scientific, IMHO... Speaking of being scientific, I don't understand how you can form an opinion when you haven't even tried them or "know anyone with an AMD machine"? I think a fast dual AMD would be nearly as fast for Crafty as that quad you are running on, probably faster since the quad is not exactly state of the art anymore. You could get this AMD system for peanuts compared to the _equivalent_ Intel box. Of course for scientific research on parallel algorithms I can understand why you prefer a quad, even a slow one :) -S.
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.