Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:12:39 12/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 02, 2002 at 12:20:46, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>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... Have you never seen an article about a new product, where a picture was unavailable? I have seen this _many_ times. Both with computers and with other things... > >>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. The only evidence I would take for such a claim is for someone to take two exact machines such as the 2.8 xeon with RDRAM and an athlon 2800+ and compare them carefully and show numbers that are better than his, without resorting to unsafe tricks such as overclocking or anything else. I have basically refused to answer problem questions about crafty when the cpu is overclocked in any way. I am not sure _any_ non-engineer understands the overclocking issues, and just because "it worked on my test" doesn't mean it works for _all_ tests. And it doesn't even mean it worked correctly for _that_ test. If a particular circuit takes 400 picoseconds to settle, and you give it 350, it might settle some of the time, none of the time, or all of the time, depending on luck. Yet people say "it works fine" which may or may not be true for _all_cases. I've seen too many cases of failure to even think about the overclocking issue. So standard machines, compared as done on THG, could be used to discredit the numbers posted there. But not "hey, my AMD does better after I ...." Because 99.99999% of the people run 'em right out of the box... Including me.. > > >>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"? Simple. I know Eugene quite well. He's an extremely reliable source. Crafty is in the SPEC suite so I have talked to reps from _every_ chip manufacturer over the past couple of years and know the results. I don't have any AMD machines that I can run on, and I don't know anybody _here_ that has AMDs handy for me to test on. But I have gotten plenty of results from all over. Enough to say with pretty good confidence "AMD and Intel are close on the 2.8 xeon vs 2800+ athlon when running Crafty on a single CPU, but Intel leads the way when a dual-cpu machine is used." Remember that in the last WMCCC event Crafty participated on, the machine was a dual AMD, because that is what the operator had. I had plenty of comparison numbers back then, on a daily basis. >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. I don't argue price. AMD wins there hands-down. But I do argue performance. Intel has been shipping quad 2ghz machines for quite a while. No AMD box can come close to that. My quad 700 is certainly old and I am sure that this dual 2.8 xeon box is going to be at least twice as fast, probably as much as 3x faster. > >Of course for scientific research on parallel algorithms I can understand why >you prefer a quad, even a slow one :) > Correct, although when I bought it, a quad 400 xeon was the fastest thing around. When I upgraded it to 700mhz it was again the fastest box around. But a couple of years has made that fade away. >-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.