Author: Dan Newman
Date: 13:54:56 02/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 2001 at 00:22:09, Dann Corbit wrote: >On February 24, 2001 at 00:01:33, Dan Newman wrote: >[snip] >>Heh. I bought the Intel compiler (version 5.0) on the basis of reports of >>better performance than MSVC, but on my program I get a 24% hit instead... >>I imagine what may happen is that if you optimize for one compiler, you >>end up doing worse on another. Generally I've found MSVC to be 20-30% >>better than anything else I've tried (Watcom, gcc, Intel). > >Which brings up another point -- >If you are thinking of buying this compiler, keep this in mind: >1. It *requires* Microsoft C++ Professional or Enterprise edition >2. You can try it out for free for one month. > >>(It could be that I just haven't found the right switches yet.) >> >>The Intel compiler did find a few minor "bugs" that have been slipping past >>MSVC--got 4 warnings that really needed fixing--so it's not a total loss :). > >It does have some excellent diagnostics. I have found that running my code >through as many compilers as possible as well as PC-Lint and LCLint will turn up >little nagging things that need attention each time. > >For floating point performance, the Intel compiler really shines. It is >sometimes twice as fast as any other in my possession. >Try this code with your favorite compilers, and you will find that Intel crushes >the opposition: > <snip code> I tried it, and it blew Watcom out of the water. And Watcom (the last I tested it) was a bit faster on FP than MSVC. I guess I ought to try it out on some of my old raytracing codes... -Dan.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.