Re: AMD vs. Intel Floating Point
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg29470] Re: AMD vs. Intel Floating Point
- From: Jens-Peer Kuska <kuska at informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 01:56:47 -0400 (EDT)
- Organization: Universitaet Leipzig
- References: <9gcman$364$1@smc.vnet.net> <9gn7i2$ere$1@smc.vnet.net> <9gpog0$hg4$1@smc.vnet.net>
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Hi, I have never seen an benchmark where a Intel CPU of the same clock speed beats an Athlon. You may look at: http://fampm201.tu-graz.ac.at/karl/timings40.html and see that the fastest 5 (five !) entries are Athlon CPU's. Since an Athlon has one floating point pipeline more than an Intel CPU it is foolish to ask "Work three workers more than two ?" I would realy like to see why Seti@home is slower on an Athlon -- but it is definetly *not* the floating point performance. BTW since when where *screen saver* used as floating point benchmarks ? Regards Jens Orestis Vantzos wrote: > > In what sense is it foolish? Seti@home for instance, which relies heavily on > floating point operations, does work slower on AMD chips... > Orestis