Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 11:20:08 04/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2003 at 10:48:24, Aaron Gordon wrote: >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. Interested or not, this indicates that your memory timing explanation probably doesn't entirely explain the differences between your benchmarking and official SPEC submissions. -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.