Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 13:32:10 04/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 27, 2003 at 14:50:27, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On April 26, 2003 at 22:25:47, Aaron Gordon wrote: > >>On April 26, 2003 at 21:11:59, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>I checked Aaron's story with his contact at AMD. The guy said that AMD didn't >>>allow performance testing with the memory _overclocked_, but it certainly isn't >>>underclocked. This makes perfect sense to me. (If you allow overclocking memory, >>>why wouldn't you also overclock the processor? Then all your benchmarks are >>>worthless.) >>> >>>So SPEC is comparing non-overclocked Intel to non-overclocked AMD and Intel >>>wins. >>> >>>-Tom >> >>When I ran the tests I recalled seeing some information where the P4 was running >>CAS2 and the like. The settings I was told to use put me at CAS 2.5. > >It sounds like you don't really know what configs Intel uses for SPEC testing. > >>How would this be 'fair'? Same thing happens on some review pages, but to a much >>larger degree. As I have proven in the past tomshardware has actually run the >>memory lower than the bus on the athlons tested, put the AGP to 1x, etc. > >I think we can all agree that review pages may be biased. My point was that SPEC >is not biased, because the vendors are submitting their own scores. I've said this many, many times already. AMD told me to run CL2.5. I've seen them do the same thing for the SPEC benchmark. Try reading the lawsuit message I posted here again. I'm sure they'd run the fastest timings in the bios if they could. I can, and have, and don't have anything to fear from Intel. >>slow. I went and 'rented' one myself. I compared a few clock speeds, I'll post >>what I have so far but the most for now will be just the max both systems could >>do. >>GCC (Linux kernel compile times) >>XP-2.50GHz: 119.5 seconds >>P4-3.32GHz: 126.87 seconds >>Gzip: >>P4-3.32GHz: 25.340 seconds >>XP-2.50GHz: 26.060 seconds > >etc. Your gcc test shows a 41% improvement in IPC for the Athlon, vs. the 9% >improvement in official SPEC submissions. You get a 29% improvement in Gzip vs. >a 22% improvement. How do you explain this? You're obviously a big AMD fan, why >should I think your results are somehow more accurate than results from the >companies themselves? > >-Tom I'm only a fan of whats fastest. Also, if I see a good product getting reviewed or tested poorly I'm going to make a comment. AMD, Intel, Cyrix/VIA, doesn't matter. First of all, I used the fastest timings on both systems. I didn't run CL2.5 as some of the SPEC systems run. I used the fastest drivers I could find on both systems. The point is.. when both systems are configured so they just can't possibly go ANY faster this is what you get. Believe what you want, doesn't matter to me either way. I'm just reporting my test results.
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.