Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 07:53:14 04/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 2003 at 09:56:43, Johan Hutting wrote: >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 What about this?
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.