It just shows that as a benchmark for SRI and Crossbar it is not objective and therefore pretty meaningless in a scientific sense, and does nothing to help prove outlandish claims about SRI and Crossbar on either the K8 or K10 platform.
If something *completely* unrelated to SRI and Crossbar, and even HTT skews the results, then what good is the program for only benchmarking SRI and Crossbar and HTT? You can dodge with "but your hardware sucks" which you have several times, but that doesn't answer the question.
Isn't it pretty obvious? Your hardware *does* suck. Truth may hurt, but it's still true.
A properly configured system would have 16x the AGP performance that your system has, and as such, would have negligible overhead on the total results. A factor 16 is an incredible lot. Your system is simply outside of the targeted configurations of this benchmark. A properly configured X300-card has no effect on the CPU results. And that's pretty much one of the slowest videocards available today.
That is the answer, deal with it.
It is not an objective benchmark, period. It is dependent on external factors other than that which you are trying to prove its validity for. If it were a valid, objective benchmark, it could be installed on *any* system, regardless of memory or video hardware with more than one physical or logical core and do the same thing. It's silly to think that this is a meaningful measurement of anything other than "It draws fire this fast on this hardware with these exact settings"
It's meaningless for my hardware(which is currently pissing me off. stupid ATI). More importantly, it's meaningless for big iron.. You know.. MP systems with the silly 8mb video adapters, which interestingly enough, have FAR more interesting crossbars and HTT links than boring ass desktop boards - imagine that - a supposed SRI and Crossbar benchmark that can't run on some of the most hardcore SRI and crossbars created to date!
First of all, it's not meant to be the perfect benchmark for crossbar/HT performance. It's just one of the side-effects one of the users ran into. The benchmark's purpose is to get the best possible performance out of various architectures available today (with this particular algorithm). In order to get the best out of the architectures, we need to study and understand these architectures. Therefore, if increasing the HT-bus speed means our inter-core communication will improve, and therefore the multithreaded parts of the algorithm will be more efficient, then that is valuable information.
But anyway, because of its purpose, namely benchmarking itself, it's implicitly valid on any system you run it on. In your case it proved that your configuration has such poor AGP performance that the graphics becomes the bottleneck. Valuable information.
Secondly, you're the one making outlandish claims here. Your system is running in an extremely crippled state. That's what makes benchmarks (yes, plural) useless... Not the benchmarks themselves.
Thirdly, servers with crappy 8 mb video adapters are outside of the scope of my application's usage. This is meant for visualization stations, some of which have more GPUs than they do CPUs. Not all multiprocessor systems are web/database servers, you know.
Pathetic that you need to have a go at me just because you can't properly configure your own system, and don't even have the slightest clue what my benchmark is about.