By: Aaron Spink (aaronspink.delete@this.notearthlink.net), August 10, 2014 8:04 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Wilco (Wilco.Dijkstra.delete@this.ntlworld.com) on August 10, 2014 5:00 am wrote:
> Also there is no point in comparing with Intel SPEC results due to the Intel compiler breaking
> some of the SPEC benchmarks - the correct result is likely about 55. If you want to compare
> CPU performance using SPEC, you have to use the same compiler and settings.
>
I'll take the voracity of a fully sumbitted SPEC score over some estimate any day of the week. You are making so many assumptions about that *estimated* score and then trying to rake Intel over the coals for fully accepted results. AKA it doesn't matter if you think the Intel compiler is breaking things, its an fully accepted result by SPEC, your argument holds no water.
> Also there is no point in comparing with Intel SPEC results due to the Intel compiler breaking
> some of the SPEC benchmarks - the correct result is likely about 55. If you want to compare
> CPU performance using SPEC, you have to use the same compiler and settings.
>
I'll take the voracity of a fully sumbitted SPEC score over some estimate any day of the week. You are making so many assumptions about that *estimated* score and then trying to rake Intel over the coals for fully accepted results. AKA it doesn't matter if you think the Intel compiler is breaking things, its an fully accepted result by SPEC, your argument holds no water.