Author: Sally Weltrop
Date: 19:47:20 12/31/04
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 2004 at 19:01:20, Aaron Gordon wrote: >On December 31, 2004 at 18:33:01, Eran Karu wrote: > >>Please click below. >> >>http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2213&p=4 >> >>In the graph, you can see that Pentium runs more nodes per second than AMD does. >>So, while many people say AMD is better than Pentium for chess, why does the >>graph show the opposite? >> >>Eran Karu > >Because Anand, like many other review pages, pick and choose what programs >they'd like to favor for Intel. If you compare Divx encoders, Chess programs, >etc. Anything that is optimized for the P4s and doesn't do well on the Athlons, >they use. I emailed Anandtech multiple times about using Crafty, he did it once >in a Xeon EMT (64bit) vs Opteron test. The P4 got killed, as usual, so he >decided to go back to TSCP.. which so far favors P4 chips more so than Athlons. >The only chess program that I've seen that does it. > > >Lots of people will say I'm crazy, why would they do that, etc. I've already >seen it before (Tomshardware faking pictures, benchmarks, Anandtech and HardOCP >doing the same). Been like this for quite some time. > >Kick backs from Intel are just one of the reasons they do this. Do you really >think some kids that started a benchmarking page are going to give Intel bad >reviews and stop Intel sending them $800 worth of chips, $500 of ram, $200 >motherboards every other month? You make a good point here. Never thought of that way. Anand is definitely biased in his reviews then. > >One of the reasons they don't use DVD2AVI in the encoding tests. Athlon beats >the P4 by quite a bit. Of course Intel doesn't want you to know that.. and the >review doesn't want to stop getting free stuff. So you'll basically never see >the Athlon optimized stuff, ever. Only recently has HardOCP started to use >DVD2avi (and the P4 gets absolutely annihilated). They do the same thing with >MP3 encoders, encryption, you name it. Even OpenSSL (pick and choose tests). > >Read this to see one of the MANY things they do: >http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/august/010814_Intel_SysMark/010814_Intel_SysMark.htm > >and >http://www.vanshardware.com/reviews/2002/08/020822_AthlonXP2600/SYSmark%202002%20Analysis%20Presentation%20FINAL.pdf > >In short, what Intel did was take the 1 filter the P4 did well at, did it over >and over.. making almost the entire score based off that 1 single test. Just >imagine someone taking Crafty, Shredder, Chess Tiger, TSCP, and Fritz. Testing >them all and showing the Athlon is faster overall. Is this a good test? Yep. >Now, lets do it like this.. TSCP, TSCP, TSCP, TSCP, Crafty. Way to go Intel. > >Basically don't bother trusting any review pages. Either test it yourself or ask >someone that has both systems that is competent. I've had both a P4 (2.4 @ >3.2GHz) and an Athlon XP (1.83 @ 2.6GHz), and have tested various Athlon and P4 >systems over the years. I would use my Athlon ANY day over my P4, and I do, >because the P4 is just plain slow. Some things it is MUCH slower (over twice as >slow). Yes, it is configured properly. Infact, the memory latency, timings AND >memory speed is faster on the P4 (I use PC3500 overclocked, 2-2-3-6 timings) vs >3-4-4-11 timings on my PC2700 that is in the Athlon.
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.