Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 19:08:41 04/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2003 at 01:01:37, Keith Evans wrote: >On April 23, 2003 at 00:43:27, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On April 22, 2003 at 22:09:16, Aaron Gordon wrote: >> >>>On April 22, 2003 at 21:20:15, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>> >>>>Here are *official* results for Spec2k. Please notice that Athlon benchmarks >>>>were submitted by AMD itself. >>>> >>>>http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2003q1/cpu2000-20030224-01964.html >>>>http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2002q4/cpu2000-20021202-01875.html >>>> >>>>So: base Spec2k for P4/3.06 is 1099. For Athlon XP 3000+ score is 995. Higher is >>>>better. >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>>Eugene >>> >>>I've done official testing for AMD using AMD's methods. This was when I was >>>working on the optimized Quake 3 dlls. They had me disable everything in the >>>bios. This means the test took a pretty large hit performance wise. Why? I asked >>>AMD the same thing. They responded with, "Intel doesn't think it's fair, so if >>>we set the bios timings to the fastest settings possible we'd have a large >>>lawsuit on our hands and AMD doesn't need that". If you need confirmation of >>>what I'm saying email me at speedycpu@attbi.com and I'll give you the contact >>>information to the guy at AMD and he'll verify everything I've said. >>> >>>So, for a properly configured Athlon, my results are there and plain as day. >>>Like I said, run them yourself on the same systems I ran them on. >> >>I don't see how that works. Intel has the "performance at all costs" reputation >>for SPEC scores, even going so far as to use its committee clout to make >>profile-directed optimizations allowed for base scores, and now you're saying >>they use artificially slow memory timings? You can be sure that the competition >>(Sun, IBM, HP, etc.) runs their memory as fast as possible--is Intel going to >>sue them, too? Also, Intel submits slightly higher scores than Dell for the same >>processors. Does Dell also run its memory slow? And what would the charge be for >>this lawsuit, anyway? And besides, why do slow memory timings hurt AMD and not >>Intel? >> >>It's one thing to suggest that some sites might be somewhat biased in Intel's >>favor to get free stuff from them, but in this free-press society, not all sites >>can be biased, or it would be a major coup for the one that does the exposee. >>Besides, what benefit would aggressively anti-Intel sites (e.g., AMDZone) get >>from biasing their reviews towards Intel, and their reviews are remarkably >>similar to other sites' reviews. >> >>Suggesting that all hardware review sites are biased and that Intel, Dell, and >>AMD are all part of a conspiracy to artificially lower their own SPEC scores... >>did you forget your tin foil hat today? >> >>-Tom > >Well if they thought that said settings would produce unreliable behavior, then >they might feel uncomfortable quoting performance under said conditions. Makes >sense... The default settings are good enough for consumers but unreliable for SPEC? -Matt
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.