Author: Keith Evans
Date: 10:01:04 04/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2003 at 01:20:00, Matt Taylor wrote: >On April 23, 2003 at 23:27:49, Keith Evans wrote: > >>On April 23, 2003 at 22:08:41, Matt Taylor wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>No the default settings are good enough for consumers, and apparently good >>enough that they use them for SPEC. > >Default settings on all my boards are more optimized than the ones Aaron has >described. > >>The "optimized" settings may be operating components out of specification, so >>they could feel uncomfortable quoting results obtained with those in benchmarks. >>For example do those people who tweak BIOS settings related to DRAM know how to >>read a datasheet and verify that all of the parameters are being met? > >Modern DRAM has an SPD chip on it that lets the DIMM determine the specs. There >is a difference between using SPD and manually configuring the DIMM so that it >runs slower. I believe Aaron was implying the latter. > >I have had ram where I've been forced to manually configure it due to the >manufacturer settings being too aggressive. In my experiences, however, this is >not the general trend when you buy quality ram (which they were hopefully >using). > >>Tom was basically wondering why they might "hold back", and I offered a >>potential reason. I doubt that they would intentionally cripple their >>benchmarks. Believe me I've worked in the electronics industry for a while, and >>marketing people will do anything possible to quote good numbers. > >Considering they've had a couple hard years of losses and their gross income >doesn't even compare to Intel's profit, AMD has no means to fight a lawsuit. >Such lawsuits are not aimed for major financial gains but rather to inflict >financial woes on the opponent. Baseless or not, if AMD was indeed threatened >with a lawsuit over their numbers, they would be forced to comply. > >>I remember back when Diamond was shipping overclocked graphics cards. By default >>they would be overclocked, and then we people had trouble they would call up and >>the tech support guys would tell them to edit a ".ini" file to fix the problem. >>I'm sure the cards that went to reviewers were carefully screened so they could >>be overclocked and produce good benchmarks. > >So if AMD is doing the opposite as Aaron is claiming, it should make you raise >your eyebrows. > >-Matt It just wouldn't make any sense. If they are so afraid of getting caught up in a lawsuit with Intel, then how do you explain the release of the Opteron?
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.