Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 17:19:32 12/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2002 at 20:15:01, Matt Taylor wrote: I was under impression this was a specint2000 test at the specint homepage. Still i find personally 868 a very IMPRESSIVE score for a 1.2Ghz thing. Compare to 2.2Ghz P4. having LESS than that. Note that 64 bits code is slower on the AMD processor than 32 bits code. I'm not sure you want to use the 64 bits code for 99% of the crafty code. >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.