Here's a little teaser....

[zpdixon]

To surprise, the non-paralle result of SPECint2006 is much faster than the parallel result.
SPECint2006(base/peak)
Intel 3GHz 20.2/22.6 (test data: 2007.7.23)
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...723-01539.html

I looked at the SPEC scores in details, and I don't understand where you see that the "non-paralle result of SPECint2006 is much faster than the parallel". Here is a SPECint2006 result with auto-parallelization for a 3 GHz Xeon [1]: 20.9/24.3. This is better than your non-parallel 20.2/22.6.

[1] http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...916-02014.html

[KTE]

I looked at the SPEC scores in details, and I don't understand where you see that the "non-paralle result of SPECint2006 is much faster than the parallel". Here is a SPECint2006 result with auto-parallelization for a 3 GHz Xeon [1]: 20.9/24.3. This is better than your non-parallel 20.2/22.6.

[1] http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...916-02014.html

That's running the -parallel flag for C Benchmarks base optimization as well.

[zpdixon]

That's running the -parallel flag for C Benchmarks base optimization as well.

Yeah, I am not sure but I think that vendors are free to do what they want in the base and peak tests.

- Z