Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 17:15:01 12/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2002 at 19:19:00, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On December 30, 2002 at 19:13:36, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>On December 30, 2002 at 12:23:59, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On December 30, 2002 at 11:55:51, Sean Mintz wrote: >>> >>>>I'm interested to know if they compiled crafty for 64 bits. I doubt that because >>>>the 32 bit athlons running at the same speed get around 650. That's a 25% >>>>increase. Isn't this the improvement they said we would get from running 32 bit >>>>applications on the athlon 64? Anyone else have any ideas? >>> >>>Of course it was a 64 bits compile. They are not idiots. they have a multi >>>billion dollar reason to compile it for 64 bits. >>> >>>Rethink your statement! >>> >>>Suppose someone from the testdepartment then tells his boss that the >>>billions of investments into their 64 bits cpu were shown a bit worse >>>because they only ran software in 64 bits. >>> >>>How many seconds before entire testdepartment is fired? >>> >>>0.01 if i was that manager. >>> >>>Of course the testdepartment optimized the executable as far as they could >>>for the 64 bits processor. Anything that was possible until now has been done >>>let me assure you that. >>> >>>The fastest executables with production compilers can be found at specint >>>of course. Only beta versions of copmilers which didn't make it into the >>>mainstream are possibly not allowed to get used for specint (which is >>>a good thing). >>> >>>So if there is anything out there yet that allows to compile crafty to >>>64 bits somehow, be sure they used it. >>> >>>Best regards, >>>Vincent >> >>Vincent, please forgive me for saying this, but: >> >>You have not presented one shread of evidence to prove that they used 64 bit. >>All you have presented is sheer speculation! >> >>What are the FACTS? Do you have any? >> >>Sorry about that, but someone had to say it. >> >>Bob D. > >As you can see in specint the different companies which earn billions with >processors will of course let their processor look like the best. They optimally >prepare the software for their processor like they want to, of course under the >rules there are. > >That means in short that it is more than naive to suppose they are not using 64 >bits when it can speed them up. > >There is billions at stake here. > >Please do not tell me the companies are idiots in this sense. > >Best regards, >Vincent Yes, but I didn't see any evidence that AMD ran the benchmark either. From what I could tell, it seemed like a 3rd party got a Clawhammer sample and ran the benchmark. I'm sure AMD wants to look good -- but do other people care as much about AMD's reputation? -Matt
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.