Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 08:23:00 04/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 2003 at 11:06:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 30, 2003 at 10:53:14, Aaron Gordon wrote: > >>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? > > >That was an ASUS box with PC2700 CL2 DRAM. I think that was what he was >trying to point out. The system AMD sent in Nov 2001 was an AthlonXP 1900+, Asus A7V266-E, Gf3 Ti500, 512mb (two 256mb sticks) of Corsair PC2400XMS CL2. As I said before that ram was the fastest out at the time. Also, just because it's CL2 doesn't mean they ran CL2. Just as they didn't in my case.
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.