Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:21:35 10/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
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. Oh well very old intel c++ compilers i already found out i couldn't use P4 optimizations. I never would *assume* in fact that P4 optimizations are downwards compatible. So i never went further than P3 optimizations for all other hardware than P4. And it's definitely *not* the case that optimizations that work for P3 also are fast for AMD. A good example is doing 2 vector instructions after each other at the AMD, which is very bad for it. There are of course thousands of other combinations which hurt AMD more than P3 or P2. I hope you realize a chip is a very complex thing. It's millions of transistors, so there is plenty of combinations to execute instructions which are getting some kind of penalty on cpu A and not on cpu I. In short there is plenty of room to make your own cpu look better than a competing cpu. Best regards, Vincent
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.