Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 20:25:26 12/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2002 at 23:35:05, Matt Taylor wrote: There is a very simple thing in processorland. Test before making claims. Never buy shares because of drumming of a manufacturer. Only do so after testing speed of it :) >On December 30, 2002 at 20:19:32, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>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. > >Uh, what? Generally speaking, 64-bit code runs at the same speed as 32-bit code >on the Hammer. It runs with a few notable exceptions at the same speed as on its >little brother Athlon. Please read the Page 19 of the K8 optimization >presentation by Tim Wilkens before making such claims. > >http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/Optimization_-_Tim_Wilkens.pdf > >I will clue you in that a lot of computation is focused on the ALU, and all the >ALU operations run at 1 clock latency (with maximum throughput of 3 ops/cycle). > >Also, the location of the benchmarks is irrelevant. SPEC did not run the >benchmark for Hammer. I could not find K8 results on their webpages. > >>>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.