Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 14:06:29 09/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
My guess it that Intel's compiler group also does not care how fast code they generated is on PII/PIII. Thanks, Eugene On September 30, 2002 at 16:07:37, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On September 30, 2002 at 12:26:36, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>Wrong. Some P4 optimizations hurt AMD. > >Then I suppose they hurt P2/P3 just as much. Either way, my point is still >valid, except for the psychotic cases where some optimization helps one and >hurts the other (I'm sure there aren't a whole lot). > >>Thanks, >>Eugene >> >>On September 30, 2002 at 00:09:28, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >> >>>On September 29, 2002 at 23:31:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>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??? >>> >>>They don't have to optimize specifically for the competitor's chip, as Intel >>>compiler still produces probably the fastest binaries for AMD machines. Any >>>general optimizations (P2, P3, and even P4 optimizations (excluding SSE2 stuff >>>or whatever)) are just as helpful for AMD processors as they are for Intel ones.
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.