Quote:

ScienceMark is a synthetic benchmark, so things like it have no practical use.

Not!

Science Mark is more valid than SuperPi as Primordia and the like do actual mathematical code not just divisions and remainders.

Baron, you are incorrect.... ScienceMark is indeed a synthetic benchmark, it is a collection of 7 different scientific code blocks intended to stress the CPU, particularly the computation float point capabilities of the CPU. There are several bench

marks that do this, PC

Mark, 3D

Mark to name a few. Oddly, if you download the software, softpedia describes the benchmark as not optimized for an architecture, yet it consistently shines on AMD platforms.... several reasons, really --- the FPU is stronger on the K8.... but I wonder..... let's see....

Download a copy of ScienceMark 2.0 and do 'About ScienceMark', 5 people contributed to the project:

Tim Wilkens, Ph.D.

Sean Stanek, B.S.

Julian Ruhe, Ph.D.

Per Kjellgren, M.S.

Alexander Goodrich, B.S.

Now, I wonder.... if you use google (it is your friend as you pointed out in another thread) would any of these people pop up....

a) Let's start with Tim....

Yep, he did a presentation --

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/Downloadab...
Wow.... what a coincidence.... ok, so could happen.... let's try another one.

B) Ok, well lets check out Julian.... not him... he could not possibly be a programmer who optimizes for AMD....

Ooops, here it is again:

Quote:

Julian Ruhe, a very talented ASM programmer, sent us an Athlon-optimized version of Stream. This optimized binary makes use of 3DNow! and MMX to get the most out of the memory subsystem.

An ASM programmer optimizing for AMD....

http://www.aceshardware.com/Spades/read.php?article_id=...
Well, it turned up.... another coincidence...

c) Sean, Sean Stanek could not be connected to AMD could he???

Yep:

Quote:

ApusHardware interviews AMD's code guru Sean Stanek

http://techreport.com/news_archive_overview.x/2000/8/28
Fascinating.... alas, the link TechReport did not point to the original interview, or I did not read down far enough.

D) Ok how about Alexander, he is just a B.S. he could not have anything to do with AMD optimizations... well, nope...

Quote:

Alexander Goodrich and Sean Stanek, who are both software engineers that are involved with AMD-optimizations

http://www.thg.ru/cpu/20001206/print.html
Could not find anything on Per Kjellgren M.S., perhaps this is all just a coincidence and ScienceMark actually is not biased

... what is funny about this is I knew one of the developers worked for AMD, per other discussions around the net but never dug... I just found all this within the last 10-15 minutes by simple googling.

Ok... well, I do agree, ScienceMark 2.0 does run real code... but no more nor less real than SuperPI, which perplexes me to no end.... I would think that SuperPI would be your favorite benchmark of them all.... for you see, Pi is irrational --- which you should relate to very easily.

Pi is the essence of the universe, simply put it is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter of that circle. Some may say that it even has cosmic meaning or proves the existence of God.

I can draw a circle, I can sketch a the diameter of such circle. I can even measure both circumference and diameter exactly, but if I measure one, even though Pi is the ratio of the two, I cannot precisely calculate the other... for you see, Pi is irrational -- very much like you, our dear friend Baron, it just keeps going and going and going -- ...

The mathematical concept is that Pi is infinite in rank of fraction, an irrational number that cannot be specified to exact certainty. This little fact has puzzle philosophers, scientist, and mathematicians for centuries. Entire doctoral dissertations have been devoted to calculating Pi to the last digit, they have been unsuccessful. Carl Sagan romanticized on Pi in fictitious novels. Pi is what binds us and what drives us crazy.

It is within this computational challenge that calculating Pi is useful, such that, to produce 1 million decimal digits to Pi or even 8 million requires heavy lifting, many many iterative processes of successive approximation followed by minimization. The speed at which one may arrive at the 1 million digit calculation is a direct measure of the speed of the calculator. A person attempting it on an abacus would take some 2132 years, a person running attempting it on a slide rule may do it in 1722 years, a person with a hand calculator might do it in 826 years, on an early mainframe -- just a guess, but maybe a few months. On an 8088 years ago, perhaps a day.... but with Core 2 at about 4.6 GHz it takes 11 seconds.

"Computing pi is the ultimate stress test for a computer - a kind of digital cardiogram" - Ivars Peterson

(The above was posted by myself in another thread with a minor edit ....... did not feel like reinventing the wheel but the truth in Pi remains).

Jack

Well, we appreciate your well thought and admittedly long and drawn out attempt to show that to mathematically calculate Pi you need only do division with remainders.

Science Mark actually uses differential and integral calculations with X87 code and memory accesses, but your continued insistence upon demeaning and harassing statements merely allows me to conclude that your skin I am under, through no fault of my own.