Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 10:35:18 08/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 05, 2003 at 13:02:50, Albert Silver wrote:
>On August 05, 2003 at 11:15:41, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On August 05, 2003 at 10:45:41, Ricardo Gibert wrote:
>>
>>>On August 05, 2003 at 09:53:26, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>On August 05, 2003 at 09:24:07, ERIQ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No.
>>>
>>>I have to disagree. I have performed a number of experiments and found msvc
>>>faster some of the time and gcc faster some of the time. It all depends on a
>>>number of factors that are not completely predictable.
>>>
>>>The experiments consisted of simulataneously dropping CD copies of each compiler
>>>from the roof of my home and observing which CD impacted the ground first. They
>>>never seemed to impact the ground at exactly the same time, but there was no
>>>clear favorite either.
>>
>>
>>:)
>
>Joking aside, how much slower on average is gcc compared to msvc, and more
>importantly what are the final results like between the two?
>
>
Albert
It depends on the program, obviously.
I have not got MSVC/VC++ (far too expensive), but the Intel compiler produces
30% faster code than gcc2.9x or gcc3.x for my program. I imagine MS is similar
to Intel.
Eugene has previously stated that gcc is philosophically slow because of the
developers intention to not concentrate on specific cpu architecture – I think.
Frank
(BTW this is not to diminish gcc, which is a fine compiler set in my opinion,
particularly for the price - both in cash and 'non-lock-in/control-freak' terms.
A chess program compiled by gcc running on a slow machine will still beat
99.xxx% of chess palyers, I suspect.).
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.