Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:34:10 04/25/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2003 at 16:59:37, Aaron Gordon wrote: >On April 24, 2003 at 13:45:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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.. > >Would you like to explain why the AMD employee (Manager, Performance Technical >Marketing) told me this? I wouldn't venture a guess, since I have no idea. However, if a company told _my_ company to run slower or face a law suit, I'd tell them to "go for it" and then bury them with everything from defamation, to false claims to monopolistic practices. I believe the risk is simply too high...
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.