Author: Keith Evans
Date: 14:51:19 04/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2003 at 17:45:25, Aaron Gordon wrote: >On April 29, 2003 at 15:00:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 29, 2003 at 14:36:39, Aaron Gordon wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>\ >>However, in the case of Intel or AMD, I'd suspect that if they want to test >>using cas 2.5 memory at 133mhz, then they would be hesitant to run that memory >>at cas 2.0 even if it would run. Since it is outside the spec provided by the >>manufacturer of the memory itself. >> >>I can't imagine a vendor wanting to publish SPEC numbers, and then have a huge >>press release 6 months later saying "vendor used unsafe memory timing to produce >>a lead in SPEC numbers..." when that unsafe timing fails for someone else. >> >>specifications are specifications. Going beyond them invites trouble. I'm >>running a Merc V6 outboard and I have taken the compression to extreme levels, >>as well as RPM. And I have had to rebuild the thing at _my_ expense when it >>comes apart due to my exceeding the specs, even if it were still in the warranty >>period. I accept that without a hassle. >> >>Just because John Tiger can run his stock merc at 7500 against an advertised >>peak rpm of 6500 does _not_ mean that someone else is going to be able to do >>it with success... >> >>Same for memory, or anything else. I trust the manufacturers to test and decide >>on what the upper bounds are, and I live within those if I want reliability. >>For racing someone up and down the river here, I want horsepower, with >>reliability a distant second place overall. But the average mom and pop that >>take their runabout out for a Sunday afternoon of skiing or pulling a tube >>around the lake want _reliability_. And that is what Mercury/Evinrude/Intel/AMD >>want to provide... >> >>Us "hot rodders" want something different, but we don't necessarily have to push >>_our_ wants down "mom and pops" throats... > >I completely understand, but I'm curious as to the rating Corsair put on the ram >itself. I emailed them about it and will post the response here if I get one. Also if this is why the manager wouldn't let you run with CL=2, then I would ask him why he didn't just let you stuff in a faster DIMM. I don't think that Corsair even sells this one any more. (I may have missed it.)
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.