Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:43:58 10/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 01, 2002 at 09:43:00, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 30, 2002 at 12:13:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. >> >> >>Maybe or maybe not. AMD's pipeline is different, and there are subtle >>differences in instruction choices, that can make a difference in speed. I >>don't see why the Intel compiler guys would bother studying AMD at all... > >I bet 50% of their time goes into studying what is faster for P4 than for K7 :) I'd bet they don't. Optimizing for a specific processor family is tough. Trying to optimize for one while producing code that does worse on another processor is a _real_ can of worms. I don't think anyone would waste that kind of time.
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.