Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 06:33:43 12/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
From my experience: Intel's compiler shines where application spent majority of its time in several tight loops. When execution time is more-or-less evenly spread across the large application it's more important to get shorter code than to emit locally optimal but longer code. Thanks, Eugene On December 25, 2002 at 22:34:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 24, 2002 at 10:55:17, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On December 24, 2002 at 04:47:21, Frank Phillips wrote: >> >>>On December 23, 2002 at 12:12:29, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On December 23, 2002 at 12:01:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>You forget the crucial data point and that's that you have >>>>no AMD K7s out there. >>> >>>Intel is about 30% faster than gcc3.2 (and gcc2.95 and gcc 2.96) with profile >>>guided optimisation for me on my AMD Athlons (Palomino and Thoroughbred). Not >>>all of this can be due to incompetence, I suggest. >>> >>>Frank >> >>you must be using bitboards then. No other option possible. >>profile guided optimization speeds me up 20% at k7 with gcc 3.x >> > > >How can you possibly say "no other option possible"??? > >Intel _also_ does profile-guided optimizations. But I can think of _lots_ >of reasons why he might get better results than you get. Starting with his >programming style which might be _better_...
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.