Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:31:36 09/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 29, 2002 at 11:31:35, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 28, 2002 at 11:12:29, Tom Likens wrote: > >For DIEP the gcc 3.1 compiler and further produce way >faster code based upon enabling profiling. the 3.1+ >gcc versions profit more from it than intel does. > >At a P3 even the gcc compiler is not measurable faster much, >but the real difference happens on the k7. It seems to me >that the intel guys of course didn't improve their compiler >for the AMD processor. Instead it's only optimized for P4. >Not even for P3 they achieve the best possible results, >as GCC proves. I don't know what this means. I have several dozen programs (Crafty is only one) that we have run using intel's compiler and gcc, and in _every_ case, Intel's compiler is faster. On P2's, on P3's and on P4's... Of course I wouldn't use intel's compiler for an AMD chip, why would they want to optimize for a competitor's chip??? > >I am under the impression that gcc simply is so fast for >me simply because of better profiling capabilities. > >It increases speed by over 20%. > >>On September 27, 2002 at 23:37:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>[snip!] >> >>>>>>So reality is that the above result in reality is even more positive for >>>>>>AMD than it looks like. We simply cannot trust these intel c++ compiles. >>>>> >>>>>Sure you can. I have tested the 6.0 release of their compiler exhaustively, >>>>>comparing various optimizations with a known good executable from gcc 2.95.2, >>>>>and the intel compiler is producing perfect code from a comparison of the >>>>>two... >> >>Actually, in my tests it's producing *significantly* faster code (especially, if >>you use the profile-enabled optimizations). >> >>regards, >>--tom
This page took 0.01 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.