Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 07:49:52 12/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 26, 2002 at 09:33:43, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >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 This seems consistent with an Intel 1.1 MByte executable compared to around 400 kBytes for gcc. Frank > >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.