Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 15:04:21 04/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2003 at 17:51:19, Keith Evans wrote: >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.) Yeah, they don't unfortunately. At the time though I didn't have any faster dimms, the Corsair PC2400XMS CL2 was the fastest stuff out.
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.