To: Windsock who wrote (142002 ) 8/20/2001 11:42:19 AM From: Elmer Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 186894 Blow Hard Dan the Lawyer Man - Re:"SPEC is meaningless. SPEC requires algorithms with known easily fixed flaws" I thought you liked those legacy benchmarks that ran well on the old technology of the Athlon? I posted this a few days ago. Keep in mind the idiotic statement "SPEC is meaningless. SPEC requires algorithms with known easily fixed flaws" The AMD excuse is that Intel cheats by designing it's compiler specifically to look good on SPEC scores. What I've always found amusing is how anyone could possibly design a compiler to perform well with no changes in compiler flags and still optimize code for: Data compression utility, FPGA circuit placement and routing, C compiler, Minimum cost network flow solver, Chess program, Natural language processing, Ray tracing, Perl, Computational group theory, Object Oriented Database, Data compression utility, Place and route simulator, Quantum chromodynamics, Shallow water modeling, Multi-grid solver in 3D potential field, Parabolic/elliptic partial differential equations, 3D Graphics library, Fluid dynamics: analysis of oscillatory instability, Neural network simulation; adaptive resonance theory, Finite element simulation; earthquake modeling, Computer vision: recognizes faces, Computational chemistry, Number theory: primality testing, Finite element crash simulation, Particle accelerator, solving problems regarding temperature - wind, velocity and distribution of pollutants, There you have it! These are the tests run by SPEC_Base and somehow Intel's compiler designers cheated by designing for this narrowly defined group of applications with "known easily fixed flaws"! No changes in compiler switches and those deceitful cheats somehow produced the fastest scores around. EP