Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 07:48:24 04/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2003 at 02:38:17, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >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 When I was doing the Quake3 benchmarks for AMD I saw a little over 20% drop in FPS from running the slow memory timings. This is why I was wanting them to use the CAS-2.0, 4-bank interleave, etc settings.. because it beat the crap out of the P4-2GHz they were testing again. With the timings at the slowest settings the 1900+/1.6GHz lost by a few fps. I didn't try slower timings in the other benchmarks. I'm only interested in what the systems could at their peak.
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.