Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 13:47:06 06/26/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2003 at 16:11:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 25, 2003 at 13:20:46, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On June 25, 2003 at 04:52:12, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On June 25, 2003 at 03:55:03, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >>> >>>>Apple Hardware VP Defends Benchmarks: >>>> >>>>http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/03/06/24/2154256.shtml?tid=126&tid=181 >>> >>>I'll be darned. An oinking weasel. >> >>It obviously doesn't pass the smell test when Apple's scores disagree with the >>officially submitted SPEC scores so dramatically, even if the VP does try to >>justify their testing methodology. >> >>The guy mentions that the PPC scores could have been higher if they had used a >>different compiler? Uhhh, why didn't they do that and avoid this whole mess? >> >>-Tom > > >His testing methodology was not _that_ bad. He _did_ use the same compiler for >both processors, which is certainly reasonable. > >Whether he used that specific compiler because it made the g5 look better is >another issue, although it is doubtful that the gcc guys have got any great >g5 customizations built in yet. > >One _could_ make a case for testing either way. (a) using the same compiler; >(b) using the _best_ compiler for each respective machine. By "the same compiler" you mean "the same front end?" Thanks, Eugene >The classic problem with (b) is that humans are influencing the outcome in a >big way, because you not only measure raw hardware performance, you measure how >good the optimizing gurus are at their craft. Either way is open to lots of >criticism, unfortunately. > >SPEC is still going to be the best comparison since each vendor is free to >use the fastest compiler and settings he can find, so long as the result >produces correct and validated answers. The "gurus" still count, of course, >but absolute is absolute.
This page took 0.01 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.