Author: Johan Hutting
Date: 06:56:43 04/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2003 at 18:04:21, Aaron Gordon wrote: >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. http://www.specbench.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2003q1/cpu2000-20030224-01964.html ==> CL2
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.