Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 11:36:39 04/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2003 at 14:20:08, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >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 The bit of testing I did in the past with crapped out memory timings did prove that the memory settings helped. I only said I RECENTLY tested Quake3, that doesn't mean I didn't do any testing at all. If I hadn't I wouldn't be making such a fuss over this stuff. The ram settings DO help a lot. As I said before, you're welcome to telnet into my machine and run the tests yourself.
This page took 0 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.