Author: Charles Worthington
Date: 18:46:55 02/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2003 at 21:27:28, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On February 19, 2003 at 20:58:20, Charles Worthington wrote: >>That is like comparing a Yugo to a Ferrari. > >OK, as a computer architecht I have to correct this foolery. > >1. Deeper pipelining do not necessarily lead to greater performance. > A deeper pipeline decreases the cycle time of the processor, but increases >the branch misprediction penalty and causes all sorts of other nasty forwarding >stalls. Intel believes in superpipelining; I read a paper where they have >simulated a 50 stage pipeline and believe it has higher performance. There are >also people who think this is hogwash. > >2. It is very difficult to determine the cycle time of a circuit > The problem is that the TOPOLOGICAL longest path is not always the longest >data correct path. It is very difficult to give a good example for this, but I >suggest you do a search for 'false path' on google and read up a bit. When >intel makes chips, they don't classify them as 2.8GHZ or 3.06GHZ. They just >make chips. When the test them according to heat resistance, etc, then they are >classified. This is why overclocking a PIV 2.2GHZ to 3.0GHZ is safe; >overclocking a 3.0GHZ to 4.0GHZ is much more suspect: no one knows all the real >limits in the chip. The chip may have very very annoying corner cases where it >fails. > >3. Processor performance is very dependent on the application. > Anandtech did a review of the Barton version of the Athlon [512KB cache]. In >some benchmarks the PIV beat the Athlon, and in some the reverse. >Unreal 2003 Botmatch: AMD over PIV, 75:70 >Rendering Time in in 3DMAX: PIV over AMD, 169:227. > > This brings up another point. Intel has a vision of the processor as the >multimedia center of the home. The PIV is designed to excel at multimedia >signal processing applications (like 3DMAX). These applications have few >branches and a great deal of parallelism; the deep pipeline of the PIV does not >matter. A Chess Engine, however, is integer code with lots of branches, which >is why the Athlon usually performs well. anthony I wasnt speaking of performance i was speaking mainly of purpose. Do you feel that AMD honestly markets their product and condones the ridiculous overclocking figures that we see here? Perhaps I will write AMD and post their reply here. >charles
This page took 0.01 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.