Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:45:23 04/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2003 at 13:01:04, Keith Evans wrote: >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? I'm sorry, but I don't buy the "Urban Legend" stuff about Intel suing anyone that is faster. They could get murdered in court for filing a frivilous lawsuit and end up paying attorney fees for _both_ sides. It makes no sense, other than to provide another urban legend topic for various conversation groups..
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.