Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

SpecInt/SpecFP - Intel vs AMD

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 13, 2001 2:17:12 AM

These results speak for themselves:
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/cpu2000.html

For those who don't feel like searching the table:

SpecInt (Integer performance test):
Company Name System Name Base Peak
Intel Corporation Intel D850GB motherboard(1.5 GHz, Pe 524 536
Advanced Micro Devic Gigabyte GA-7DX Motherboard, 1.33GHz 482 539
Intel Corporation Intel D850GB motherboard(1.3 GHz, Pe 473 483
Advanced Micro Devic ASUS A7V Motherboard, 1.3GHz Athlon 438 491

SpecFP (Floating-Point performance test):
Company Name System Name Base Peak
Intel Corporation Intel D850GB motherboard(1.5 GHz, Pe 549 558
Intel Corporation Intel D850GB motherboard(1.3 GHz, Pe 503 511
Advanced Micro Devic Gigabyte GA-7DX Motherboard, 1.33GHz 414 445
Advanced Micro Devic ASUS A7V Motherboard, 1.3GHz Athlon 348 374

---------------

The Athlon's floating point performance is looking rather pathetic. The 1.3GHz P4 beats the 1.33GHz Athlon!

The Athlon's integer performance is more robust. Averaging the base and peaks together, the 1.3GHz P4 still beats the 1.3GHz Athlon!

Be aware that this is an industry accepted benchmarking application. Spec is the standard by which all CPUs are judged. There is no bias. AMD gets to run their own benchmarks on their own equipment and submit the results.

---------------

The only barrier to owning a P4 at this point is price. And that barrier will be coming down before the end of this month. I look forward to it.

-Raystonn


-- The center of your digital world --
April 13, 2001 2:33:04 AM

Hey I've seen these before.. :) 

THIS IS NOT A BASH AGAINST INTEL, I repeat THIS IS NOT A BASH. But I just want to point out Spec's disclaimer:

The results published by SPEC have been reviewed by the SPEC organization prior to publication. However, these are submissions by member companies and the contents of any SPEC reporting page are the submittor's responsibility. SPEC makes no warranties about the accuracy or veracity of this data.

As always, come to your own conclusions.
April 13, 2001 3:15:00 AM

This is a highly respected, industry accepted benchmark. Are you trying to make the libelous statement that Intel fudged the numbers? I don't think so. Look at the numbers submitted by other companies using the same CPUs, they are close to the same numbers. Are you now saying that they _all_ fudged their numbers? I wouldn't bet on that.

These are real scores, not fakes. If I were to pick and choose which benchmarks were likely to contain mistakes, it would be those done by third parties.

In addition, you'll see legal disclaimers on _all_ benchmarks indicating that the numbers don't necessarily mean anything. It's similar to what you see on late night television... "For entertainment purposes only." This is only because noone wants to be sued.

-Raystonn


-- The center of your digital world --
Related resources
April 13, 2001 3:30:37 AM

Why is it that simply making people aware of the disclaimer is immediately translated into an attack??

Holy F*cking Sh*t.....
April 13, 2001 3:36:52 AM

Nice...if SSE2 catches on, then AMD will be back where it was with the K6-2. Unless, of course, AMD gets their own SSE2 implementation working by that time...

In any event, SSE2 will definitely be an improvement over the old stack-based FPU.

Kelledin
<font color=red>"Step away from the gimp suit and put your hands on top of your head."</font color=red>
April 13, 2001 3:37:47 AM

Because you happened to point out the disclaimer on this one benchmark without reminding everyone that a similar disclaimer is on every other benchmark they'll ever read. You insinuated that this disclaimer somehow affects the validity of the results of this benchmark. If this wasn't your intention then I apologize, but ask why you pointed it out. It's no different than the disclaimers you'll read on all the other benchmarks.

-Raystonn



-- The center of your digital world --
April 13, 2001 3:40:03 AM

Oh yes all high Raystone, you have brainwashed us and we will now go and buy a P4 to run SPEC benchmarks all day and see those beautiful fake number! All hail Raystone!!

-----------------

All your RAMBUS are belong t............ ahh screw it
April 13, 2001 3:42:17 AM

griz, can you post a link to back up your claim that the spec bencmarks are fakes?

"Amd cpu...Gone in 2 secs flat, it truly is a fast chip!"
April 13, 2001 3:43:29 AM

because of the fact I myself am familiar with the benchmark and know its acclaim. I am merely trying to make sure people aware of the fact that it too is not perfect.
(in fact, I used these very same spec results in determining my next CPU, P3 or Athlon)

Also, the reason I don't quote disclaimers for other benchmarks is that everyone should be taking those
numbers with a grain of salt anyway.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by kurokaze on 04/12/01 11:58 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 13, 2001 3:47:47 AM

That's a nice troll there, Grizely1. At least I hope that was a troll. I don't see how anyone could take your claims seriously considering you can't even spell my name correctly. These are not fake numbers. I assure you they are quite real. If you'd like to test it yourself, feel free to download the spec benchmark and run it on a P4. Until you show the numbers to be off, we can safely assume that the numbesr submitted by multiple companies with P4 machines are right on.

-Raystonn

-- The center of your digital world --
April 13, 2001 3:52:40 AM

Jeez louise you people have a bad sense of humor LOL! I make one little comment and you go bezerk protection your beloved P4 shroud from evil

-----------------

All your RAMBUS are belong t............ ahh screw it
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
April 13, 2001 4:02:59 AM

The one question I've had on these is if SSE2 optimizations were used, or if you can just take an off-the-shelf compiler and get these numbers. Nothing wrong with SSE2, except that I don't know how to code it personally :-(

I welcome the price cuts also, although I would wait for the new socket.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
April 13, 2001 4:03:04 AM

I'm sorry for jumping all over you if that was a joke. There are way too many flamers on this board and you can't tell who's being serious. I just want a serious discussion on the merits of the CPUs, that's all.

-Raystonn

-- The center of your digital world --
April 13, 2001 4:16:15 AM

These results were obtained compiling with the Intel C/C++ Compiler 5.0 and Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 (for libraries). These are both commercially available compilers. You don't have to do anything special to use SSE as the Intel compiler will automatically build it with SSE if you enable this option..

The common method of CPU optimizations is to use function pointers or a class hierarchy that allows you to duplicate the important code into multiple source files, and then build each source files targetting a different CPU. You then link them together into the resulting executable and you choose which function/class hierarchy to use at runtime based on the current CPU.

This allows you to target every CPU fully, simply recompiling the important core module once for each CPU. A simple compile of the one .cpp file with the Intel compiler will optimize it for you, adding SSE if you desire, for the Intel CPU you select.

An interesting note is that binaries (programs) built with the Intel compiler are better optimized for AMD cpus as well (with SSE turned off). This is shown by the fact that AMD used the Intel compiler for their benchmarking as well. (Go to the page listing the results and click on the 'html' link to the right of the score.)

-Raystonn

-- The center of your digital world --
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
April 13, 2001 4:41:49 AM

My understanding is that compilers can do some basic SSE optimizations, but for more complicated code you generally have to get down into assembly language by hand. That's my question really. Is this straight from an off-the-shelf compiler, with no in-line assembly.

I've seen header files abstracting some 3DNow assembly, but it's still pretty ugly. I hope to learn more now that I'm not working on an antique cpu :-)

Besides, Intel compilers aren't available on my platform of choice.


In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
April 13, 2001 5:09:48 AM

As opposed to 3DNow, this is straight off the shelf C/C++ code with no inline assembly required. The reason for the inline assembly with the AMD toolkit is AMD doesn't make a compiler. Using MMX/SSE/SSE2 is much easier. It's all natively built into the compiler.

By chance is your platform of choice Linux? The Intel C/C++ Compiler for Linux is going into Beta in May of this year. All the linux coders are going to want this one. "gcc" has really crappy optimizations thus far for anything beyond the Pentium.

-Raystonn

-- The center of your digital world --
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
April 13, 2001 4:33:39 PM

You got me interested, so I went poking around Intel's site last night. One thing I'll say for Intel, they have some excellent development support wrt AMD. Now if they would work on the price/performance ratio a little :-) ... but I digress.

I did find the announcement for the Intel C/C++/Fortran compiler beta for Linux! Signed up also. Very cool. What's the price range on Intel compilers? Gnu is very good technically in my experience (well, not the fortran), and its free, but its certainly not the fastest thing out there. We've been looking at Portland Group's compilers.

>As opposed to 3DNow, this is straight off the shelf C/C++
>code with no inline assembly required. The reason for the
>inline assembly with the AMD toolkit is AMD doesn't make a
>compiler. Using MMX/SSE/SSE2 is much easier. It's all
>natively built into the compiler.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you somewhat here. I downloaded the SSE2 tutorial from Intel (http://developer.intel.com/software/products/itc/sse2/s...). I haven't read through the whole thing yet, but it definitely seems that you need to code specifically for SSE2, either in assembly, or through some of Intel's C/C++ abstractions. I'm sure the compiler optimizations take some advantage of SSE2, but the tutorial definitely emphasizes hand coding.

This is also in line with one of Tom's early P4 reviews with the whole Flak mpeg stuff:
http://www4.tomshardware.com/cpu/00q4/001125/p4-02.html
http://www4.tomshardware.com/cpu/00q4/001125/p4-07.html

While re-compiling certainly helped, the big gains were made by re-coding the algorithm with Intel's SSE optimized vector class.

So, you may not have to learn assembly, but its more then a simple re-compile. Very interesting overall.

I also found something on Intel's site called the approximate math library (http://developer.intel.com/design/pentium4/devtools/) that I might look into.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
April 13, 2001 5:14:09 PM

"I haven't read through the whole thing yet, but it definitely seems that you need to code specifically for SSE2, either in assembly, or through some of Intel's C/C++ abstractions. I'm sure the compiler optimizations take some advantage of SSE2, but the tutorial definitely emphasizes hand coding."

Using certain techniques to help point the compiler at optimizations does give you extra performance, but it's by no means required. The Spec benchmarks were not modified at all, just recompiled.

"While re-compiling certainly helped, the big gains were made by re-coding the algorithm with Intel's SSE optimized vector class."

There are already several implementations of the STL classes out there. People constantly compare and swap out different versions to find out which is best. This is just another case of a better implementation for Intel processors. It should easily plug in like any other STL implementation should you decide to use it.

-Raystonn

-- The center of your digital world --
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
April 13, 2001 5:43:04 PM

>Using certain techniques to help point the compiler at
>optimizations does give you extra performance, but it's by
>no means required.

Well, Intel's tutorial definitely paints a different picture. They are very much emphasizing assembly & their abstraction mechanisms. The tomshardware mpeg article I referenced previously shows significant improvements for the recoded algorithm.

>There are already several implementations of the STL
>classes out there. People constantly compare and swap out
>different versions to find out which is best. This is just
>another case of a better implementation for Intel
>processors. It should easily plug in like any other STL
>implementation should you decide to use it.

Nope, this isn't an STL implementation, it's more like a native vector class. The Tomshardware article on Flask MPEG specifically mentioned re-coding with this vector class, not just swapping STL implementations.

Actually, I'm not sure how you could do anything useful with SSE in the STL unless you made special cases for when STL objects are instantiated with native int or double types. If they have an SSE optimized STL, they don't mention it in the tutorial.


In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
April 13, 2001 5:53:51 PM

That's good news for Pentium 4. Northwood will do even better. The main thing, though, is that P4 is way overpriced for the performance benefit it provides. 1.33 gHz Athlon = $218, 1.5 P4 = $470 (without RAM). That is a 116% price premium for 4% better performance Integer and 22% FPU (based on adding the two numbers together). I mean, to me, that simply isn't worth it, and considering P4 motherboards and RAM even further the cost of it... Nevertheless, it does show that P4 does have promise, and hopefully the price cuts rumored for this month are true and we'll see $220 1.5 gHz P4s soon. However, if Intel cuts their prices, you can be guaranteed AMD will follow up. I wouldn't be too surprised if we see sub-$100 1.0-1.2 gHz chips from AMD, especially on Palominos debut. I could be wrong though, as that would be the best of curcumstances.

"We put the <i>fun</i> back into fundamentalist dogma!"
April 13, 2001 6:03:27 PM

"The main thing, though, is that P4 is way overpriced for the performance benefit it provides."

This is true, but only until the end of this month. Prices will drop dramatically to less than half of where they currently are. AMD cannot make price drops that drastic as their profit margins are not as large as Intel's. (Intel has a profit margin 50% higher than AMD.) Additionally, the new models are coming out and AMD currently has no released answer to the P4.

When is the Palomino scheduled to debut? Is it designed to be the answer to the P4?

-Raystonn

-- The center of your digital world --
April 13, 2001 6:13:12 PM

Actually, the current 1.33GHz T-bird is AMD's answer to the current P4. AMD hasn't been releasing new speed grades because what they have competes with the P4 quite nicely.

Kelledin
<font color=red>"Step away from the gimp suit and put your hands on top of your head."</font color=red>
April 13, 2001 6:32:53 PM

"Actually, the current 1.33GHz T-bird is AMD's answer to the current P4. AMD hasn't been releasing new speed grades because what they have competes with the P4 quite nicely."

I'm discussing the P4 as a whole. This is only its beginning range of speeds. The P4 will scale up to at least 5GHz. The Athlon is not the answer to the P4 except for the very short term.

-Raystonn

-- The center of your digital world --
April 13, 2001 6:42:37 PM

Do we have any idea what the Athlon will scale up to? We know it will scale up to 1.7GHz; it will probably scale even farther once it drops to .15u and finally to .13u. Has anyone said what the limit is for the Athlon architecture?

And beyond that, there's the Hammer family, which will probably scale even farther. Even though it's a 64-bit chip, there will probably still be a model geared towards the desktop/workstation.

Kelledin
<font color=red>"Step away from the gimp suit and put your hands on top of your head."</font color=red>
April 13, 2001 6:57:08 PM

AMD can make the price cuts. Sure, their profit margins aren't *as* high as Intel's, but they know that they have to keep their prices lower than Intels to even compete, simpy because the market sees Intel when they think CPUs.

The Palomino is scheduled to debut the 2nd half of 2001, at a speed grade of 1.533 gHz. Current Thunderbird Athlons will scale up to 1.5 gHz, possibly higher considering what overclocking heights have been reached with AXIA coded Athlons. The Palomino is simply another "enhanced" version of the Athlon. The true answer to the Pentium 4 will be the Hammer line of processors, with the Clawhammer being the consumer chip and the Sledgehammer being the server chip. However, the Athlon core will also see another die shrink to .13 micron with the Thoroughbred version, which will scale to even higher speeds and perform even better. Both the Thoroughbred (Athlon)/Apaloossa (Duron) and the Hammers are scheduled for release in the first half of 2002, not too long after Pentium 4 Northwood's release late 2001.

"We put the <i>fun</i> back into fundamentalist dogma!"
April 13, 2001 6:59:20 PM

Ahtlon will not hit .15 micron, it will go straight to .13 micron with Silicon-On-Insulator with Thoroughbred/Apaloossa in 2002. Athlon will probably easily pass 2 gHz at .13 micron.

"We put the <i>fun</i> back into fundamentalist dogma!"
April 13, 2001 8:11:15 PM

"Do we have any idea what the Athlon will scale up to? We know it will scale up to 1.7GHz; it will probably scale even farther once it drops to .15u and finally to .13u. Has anyone said what the limit is for the Athlon architecture?"

The current architecture won't be scaling very high. I'd be impressed if it made it to 2GHz at all. AMD won't be using the 0.13 process until 2002.

"And beyond that, there's the Hammer family, which will probably scale even farther. Even though it's a 64-bit chip, there will probably still be a model geared towards the desktop/workstation."

The Hammer is AMD's answer to the Itanium. That's an entirely different discussion.

-Raystonn

-- The center of your digital world --
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
April 13, 2001 8:14:54 PM

Any piece of junk will allow me to write a resume, surf the net and send emails to my grandma. Lets forget low spec systems and get to the real issues. Hardware isn't worth a dime without software....so what does intense software require? For all of you pretenders have a look at an article in Toms Graphics Guide...written May 15 and titled Proffesional Affair. It's about the various pro graphics cards and rendering speeds etc. Check it out. A P3 beats a same speed Athlon in 99% of the tests. One more thing. Dual Athlon boards are currently unavailable and this has been the case for years. So if your a serious power user requiring multi-processing power what do you do with an Athlon? Use it as a paper weight? Make a key ring out of it? Squash ants as they walk across the pavement? Stick it up someone else's arse? Maybe stick it up your own arse if your an AMD low spec faggot?

"Cock-a-doodle-do" is what I say to my girl when I wake her UP in the morning!!
April 13, 2001 8:20:19 PM

I've never heard anyone mention any hard data on the clockspeed scaling capabilities of the Athlon. I'll need links please...we all seem to be in the habit of demanding links, so I guess I'll just be fashionable. :wink:

And the Hammer could still very well serve as an answer to the P4, even if that wasn't its original intent. The Clawhammer variant seems to be aimed more at workstations...

Kelledin
<font color=red>"Step away from the gimp suit and put your hands on top of your head."</font color=red>
April 13, 2001 8:21:33 PM

Tonestar, as much as I agree some of what you said, your digression at the end invalidates the whole argument in the eyes of many. I don't want to censor anybody, just let you know that it actually hurts your argument rather than helping it.

-Raystonn

-- The center of your digital world --
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
April 13, 2001 8:30:57 PM

My point is simply this Ray...paper specs vs real world tests can often be miles apart. Speed can also come at the compromise of stability. Simply why spend money for minor gains? And if you need major gains why buy into AMD? Its all relative unless your actually in the business of selling CPU's. Then you can go chasing links and sending out press releases. Till then keep it real.

"Cock-a-doodle-do" is what I say to my girl when I wake her UP in the morning!!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
April 13, 2001 8:41:23 PM

>Speed can also come at the compromise of stability.

Please post evidence of lack of stability with Athlon CPUs

>Simply why spend money for minor gains?

Sounds like an argument against buying a P4 at this time.

>And if you need major gains why buy into AMD?

Nope, you get an Alpha. Or maybe even a dual alpha. But your best price/performance ratio for a single CPU system at this moment is AMD.

And by the way, SMP isn't the answer to everything. I have a bus-limited simulation that runs substantially faster on a single CPU box. If SMP is the answer for you, then yes, AMD is not a solution at this time. But the PIII isn't to enticing either.


In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
April 13, 2001 8:45:20 PM

You are wrong. The Hammer series is not AMD's answer to Itanium. Well, the SledgeHammer is. The ClawHammer, however, is aimed at the desktop market. The only difference between the two is the cache. One for servers one for desktops.

-----------------

All your RAMBUS are belong t............ ahh screw it
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
April 13, 2001 8:56:28 PM

Dual Alpha? No my dual P3 is doing just fine thank you. Did you read the article titled "Professional Affair" in Toms Graphic Guides you twit? Are you saying that in your pathetic world a P3 couldn't do what your Athlon does? If your application is bus limited then why didn't you just get an old 486 out of somebody's dumpster and just use that? Leave SMP concepts for those that understand it.

"Cock-a-doodle-do" is what I say to my girl when I wake her UP in the morning!!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
April 13, 2001 9:34:41 PM

>Dual Alpha? No my dual P3 is doing just fine thank you.

You think a dual PIII is even vaguely comparable to a dual Alpha? And yet you call me a twit? Go find a clue, It's not even close. You can start with those SpecFP benchmarks.

Here I'll help you out:
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/cfp2000.html
##################################### base peak
Compaq Computer Corp AlphaServer ES40 Model 6/833 1 590 658
####### Intel Corp. Intel OR840 (1 GHz Pentium III) 1 327 335

Here are the FP rates.
This shows how well the SMP architecture scales.

########################## #CPU base peak
Compaq AlphaServer ES40 Model 6/833 1 6.84 7.63
Compaq AlphaServer ES40 Model 6/833 4 24.3 26.1
Scaling Factor 3.55 3.42

I couldn't find any Intel numbers on this page. Wonder why?
Because Intel SMP scaling sucks.

Oh, but wait ... the Alpha is only 833 MHz, it must be slower.
Yeah, right...

Sorry, it doesn't do windows though.

>Did you read the article titled "Professional Affair" in
>Toms Graphic Guides you twit?

Frankly, in my work I don't give a damn about graphics performance. Pretty pictures are for generals, the analysts look at the numbers.

>Are you saying that in your pathetic world a P3 couldn't
>do what your Athlon does?

You mean in your pathetic world a dual PIII is adequate?

In fact, I'm working on a dual PIII right. And no, it can't. When I need to get work done, I go to my 16 CPU cluster.

>If your application is bus limited then why didn't you
>just get an old 486 out of somebody's dumpster and just
>use that?

Do you have any clue what bus limited means? Because I'm bus-limited on a PIII, I should drop back to a tremendously slower, narrower bus? Yea, that makes sense.

Here's what bus limited means to me:
If I make one run of this sim at a time, it will finish in about 13 hours. If I start two runs at the same time, they'll finish in about 17 hours. So, I'd be better off with two single CPU PIIIs to make my runs on, then this dual PIII. This is because the memory bus, which is shared by both processors can't keep up with the memory demands of two simultaneous runs. The CPUs are data starved.

>Leave SMP concepts for those that understand it.

Considering your lack of understanding, this is actually kind of funny. A dual PIII is barely SMP anyway. He11, you're probably running 98 on it.



In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ergeorge on 04/13/01 05:56 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 13, 2001 9:46:25 PM

"This is because the memory bus, which is shared by both processors can't keep up with the memory demands of two simultaneous runs."

You'll have to try this on an SMD P4 system eventually. I'd be interested in knowing how the dramatic bandwith increase helps out.

-Raystonn

-- The center of your digital world --
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
April 13, 2001 9:48:52 PM

>You'll have to try this on an SMD P4 system eventually.
>I'd be interested in knowing how the dramatic bandwith
>increase helps out.

Yea, I'm trying to line up a DDR and an RDRAM system to do some benchmarking on also. Not SMP yet of course.


In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
April 13, 2001 10:08:56 PM

Can't you read twit? Did I say my P3 setup compared to an Alpha setup? Well did I wanker? Those so called pretty pictures need more processing grunt than most simulations or material analysis scenarios that most Aerospace Engineers would ever come across. How do I know? Cos my friend is an Aerospace Engineer and a well renound one. Tell me what you use your 16 cpu cluster for and let me prove to the entire community what a fraud you are. Tell us about the sims you structure and the co you work for. Don't forget the final formulas as well masturbator. Check out the stats between single and dual cpu's at www.viatech.com before you make comments like "dual P3 is barely SMP anyway". Check out the major gains that are almost double speed in their SMP chipset comparison. And get off this forum you fraud. Stop wasting space. 98 doesn't support duals....even my dog knows that.

"Cock-a-doodle-do" is what I say to my girl when I wake her UP in the morning!!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by tonestar on 04/13/01 06:28 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 13, 2001 10:10:31 PM

the graphics article you cite used the athlon 'a' processor. i can't speak for other people but i was under the impression that most people on this forum when saying "athlon", now, are refering to the athlon 'b' or 'c' thunderbird. <A HREF="http://www4.tomshardware.com/graphic/00q2/000515/opengl..." target="_new">Test Setup</A>.



At the core of every system: "I'm sorry dave, i'm afraid i can't do that."
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
April 13, 2001 10:26:15 PM

Look my point is simply this: Does it matter much weather I have an 800Mhz AMD or 800Mhz Intel unit? No, because the difference in real time in miniscule. For a real performance gain you need to step up considerably. Dual cpu's might not be for everyone but you might spend money on SCSI, RAID, a new graphics card, more ram etc. But for most power users it'll mean this. Dual cpu's, ram and graphics card. From the article you can tell that the Intel instruction set it better supported than AMD's. So in the pro graphics card arena Intel wins. You can't even consider going duals with AMD. All things considered AMD just isn't a performance option. And most consumer priced units will play games adequetly be it AMD or Intel. So therefore there is no high end AMD solution. You can't deny that.

"Cock-a-doodle-do" is what I say to my girl when I wake her UP in the morning!!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
April 13, 2001 10:39:44 PM

>Can't you read twit? Did I say my P3 setup compared to an Alpha setup?

Sure sounded like it to me. Anybody else?

>Those sound called pretty pictures need more processing
>grunt than most simulations or material analysis scenarios
>that most Aerospace Engineers would ever come across.
>Tell me what you use your 16 cpu cluster for and let me
>prove to the entire community what a fraud you are. Tell
>us about the sims you structure and the co you work for.
>Don't forget the final formulas as well masturbator.

Ok, well one of the codes is about 500,000 lines of C/C++/Fortran. I'm afraid I can't summarize that for you in a few minutes. In fact, I can't even tell you what it does, so it doesn't really matter.

I can give you a rough, abstracted outline of the other one though. Are you familiar with the concept of an NP complete problem. Look it up. They are the hardest computational problems out there. I have two of them nested one inside the other.

The outside one is basically a Job Shop sheduling problem with up to 32 "machines". My program has to decide which of up to several hundred jobs it should give to each machine. Of course, figuring out which machine can even do each job is a big computing job in itself.

Now, once preliminary assignments are made to those machines, they have to figure out what roughly amounts to a traveling salesman problem with up to 200 "cities". Except this is orbital stuff, so everything is moving and you need high precision propagators every time you test a path. You're also doing dsp stuff for every visit as well. I say roughly a traveling salesman problem, it's actually higher order then that.

Now, while you're figuring out that TSP, you have to consider whether your initial Job Shop assignment was the best that it could be. So you need to tweak it as you go, which means you start the TSP all over again. You do this several times until you're satisfied.

By the way, all this was for just 10 to 15 minutes of simulation time. You need to simulate at least 36 hours to get a realistic run.

Oh, did I mention ... this will eventually have to run in far better then real time.

As I said, this is just a vague, abstracted description. In reality, it's kind of complicated. So go ahead and make your pretty pictures and pretend its important.

The 16 CPU cluster is just a proof of concept until we can get funding for something better.

>Check out the stats between single and dual cpu's at
>www.viatech.com before you make comments like "dual P3 is
>barely SMP anyway".

Dual P3 is barely SMP. And if you had half a clue what you were talking about, you'd know that. The guys down the hall have a 32 CPU SGI Origin that they're considering upgrading to 64. Now THAT's MP!

>Check out the major gains that are almost double speed in their SMP chipset comparison.

Sure, any MP solution will scale well if the processes fit in cache. The sim I descibed before has a fractional scaling ratio.

>And get off this forum you fraud.

LoL...

And finally, if you're right, why do you have to resort to name calling, profanity, and hearsay to prove it.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ergeorge on 04/13/01 06:54 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 13, 2001 10:45:06 PM

"So therefore there is no high end AMD solution."

If you define "high end" as SMP, then at this moment you are correct. Not many people need SMP though. If you're going to go with SMP, why limit yourself to only 2 processors?

Most people around here are looking for a high end workstation system. This implies a single processor system. You won't get a huge performance increase with an SMP system running most games. They simply aren't designed as multi-threaded applications. To pump up power in this arena you need the fastest single CPU, coupled with the fastest memory bus so we don't data-starve the CPU.

-Raystonn

-- The center of your digital world --
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
April 13, 2001 10:45:30 PM

>Does it matter much weather I have an 800Mhz AMD or 800Mhz
>Intel unit? No, because the difference in real time in
>miniscule.

Funny, we benchmarked a 1GHz PIII against a 1GHz TBird and found a difference of about 19%

When you're run times are measured in hours, that's kind of significant.

>So therefore there is no high end AMD solution. You can't
>deny that.

I am absolutely denying that. At least within the single CPU x86 market, AMD is THE high end solution, at least until the P4 system price becomes reasonable, and I suspect you would need to do SSE2 programming for the P4.

And I've given you a pretty good example that dual CPUs are not neccesarily the best solution for all problems.



In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ergeorge on 04/13/01 06:58 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
April 13, 2001 10:59:55 PM

>If you define "high end" as SMP, then at this moment you are correct.

If I might edit your post...

"If you define "high end" as x86 SMP, then at this moment you are correct."

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
April 13, 2001 11:06:20 PM

Aren't we both right? If AMD doesn't provide any SMP solution in the x86 arena they certainly aren't providing anything in the "x86 and not x86" arena. ;) 

-Raystonn

-- The center of your digital world --
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
April 13, 2001 11:12:32 PM

Well ergeorge you are now a certified wanker. You didn't provide any details to establish any sort of credibility, you just avoided them by frauding some job lot example. Here's why: We have 12 CNC machines at my work. 8 of them are worth more than $4 million Australian each. We also have 2 FMC (Flexible machining cells) worth millions more. We manufacture some of the most complex components for the defence and aviation industry's. All of our finite analysis is done on a single cpu machine and often compiled in less than an hour. Why do you need to simulate for 36 hours when there are only 24 hours in a day dickwad? Your still saying duallies are barely SMP, did you even go to viatech and see the benchmarks? What moron would still deny those figures? Who do you work for so I can ring them? Your probably unemployed. Hey surf the 3D ring and check out the single/dual comparisons for yourself. Check out the AMD vs Intel performance figures. When you get asked to establish some creditability come up with some real world figures not ill established stories. Check out the sites, give me the facts I asked for and until then anyone who has read the previous articles in this forum will know that your a fraud. Your not even an engineer are you?

"Cock-a-doodle-do" is what I say to my girl when I wake her UP in the morning!!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
April 13, 2001 11:29:06 PM

Oh Ray...getting through to you is so hard. "Why limit yourself to 2 processors?" Are you serious? Go and check the cost of a quad board. "Most people around here are looking for a high end work station system" A dual cpu unit is that. If they can barely afford to go from 1 cpu to 2 cpu's there definetly not gonna be able to afford a quad setup. Check out the scene Ray and some of the prices so you can make an informed comment on this forum. Of course you won't get a huge performance increase with games...is that what having a workstation means to you fool? The word is "workstation" not "playstation". Everyone knows that games are not multithreaded. God tell us something we don't know. I never once talked about games Ray and if you had bothered to read Toms Graphics Guide those cards are designed for CAD/Cam, Animation etc. Not ONE of them is a games card. Are you on the same planet as the rest of us? See you can't deny AMD hasn't got a high end solution. Anyone who has a look a dual cpu benchmarks will know that right away (ok maybe not for playing solitaire or sending emails) but creative and productive apps for sure. Nobody but nobody can deny this. Check out www.viatech.com, 3Dlabs, Elsa, Intel, and CAD app or CAD benchmark site. For god sake don't take my word for it, read a little!!!

"Cock-a-doodle-do" is what I say to my girl when I wake her UP in the morning!!
April 13, 2001 11:59:47 PM

You are a real big man aren't ya? So far reading this thread you are the only one that seems like a fraud... It is people like you that should have the livingSHIT beat out of.


We manufacture some of the most so FUCKINWHAT you are probably a janitor at that company!

LOSER!!!LOSER!!!LOSER!!!

Have a nice day yall!
April 14, 2001 12:01:08 AM

Sorry I am all better now, thanks for letting me vent.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
April 14, 2001 12:06:34 AM

MJDUNN? Are you some kinda of crack whore? Have you actually got anything to say? And no I'm a mechanical engineer not a janitor. Why did you even make a post? Have you got any real facts to offer? Come on bitch, show us you've got a brain or go back to the gay porn site you came from. Post something usefull or at least tell us about the dozens of guys your mum srews every week. Trash head.

"Cock-a-doodle-do" is what I say to my girl when I wake her UP in the morning!!
!