Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 12:36:50 12/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 02, 2002 at 13:12:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... Where, at AMD or at Intel? Of course not, and in such a case there would be a remark about the picture not being authentic. >>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. I recently got to test my program on a P4 2.53 GHz, it ran like a 1550 MHz Athlon. So if you extrapolate the Intel to 3.00 and the AMD to 2.00 you will find the AMD to be the faster by an even larger margin. I think a 4-way Opteron with hypertransport will knock the socks off anything Intel has, but let's wait and see :) > 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. Of course, I'm not talking about overclocking here, just optimizing the bios for interleaving, latency and latest drivers, basic stuff that isn't default package settings. >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.. I strongly suspect Tom's is bought by Intel, there is a lot of circumstancial evidence if you know where to look. >>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 hope you are not implying the people here are faking the results? ;) -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.