Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 23:38:17 04/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 27, 2003 at 16:32:10, Aaron Gordon wrote: >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. Can you run the same tests with slower memory settings? Do you see a 30% difference? -Tom
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.