MathGroup Archive 2001

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: AMD vs. Intel Floating Point

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg29481] Re: AMD vs. Intel Floating Point
  • From: "Orestis Vantzos" <atelesforos at>
  • Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:20:09 -0400 (EDT)
  • Organization: National Technical University of Athens, Greece
  • References: <9gcman$364$> <9gn7i2$ere$> <9gpog0$hg4$> <9gs2ic$k3p$>
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at

I am not a hardware spec, I write what I know to be true. Seti@home runs
better on Intel processors and I have seen that with my own eyes. Why I
consider it a quasi-valid benchmark for floating-point operations? Well, all
it really does is certain mathematical transformations (Fast Fourier among
them) has to depend on floating -point operations. Could the difference
be in the math-coprocessor? Errors in AMD floating-point operations that
force them to repeat a portion of the operations? I can't really tell,
hardware is not my field...
PS. Jens loosen up...

"Jens-Peer Kuska" <kuska at> wrote in message
news:9gs2ic$k3p$1 at
> Hi,
> I have never seen an benchmark where a Intel CPU of the same
> clock speed beats an Athlon.
> You may look at:
> 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

  • Prev by Date: Re: Mathematica and Powerpoint
  • Next by Date: Re: movie question
  • Previous by thread: Re: AMD vs. Intel Floating Point
  • Next by thread: Re: AMD vs. Intel Floating Point