[PC-BSD Testing] New blurb I thought some might like about AMD v Intel

Mike Bybee mbybee at dometrilogy.com
Mon Jan 4 14:06:14 PST 2010


On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Matt Olander <matt at ixsystems.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Arthur Koziol <A-Koziol at neiu.edu> wrote:
> > On 01/04/2010 12:58 PM, Matt Olander wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:34 AM, doverosx at gmail.com<doverosx at gmail.com>
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Arthur Koziol wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> http://www.osnews.com/story/22683/Intel_Forced_to_Remove_Cripple_AMD_Function_from_Compiler_
> >>>>
> >>>> Pretty evil if you asked me. Seems Intel is batting a thousand lately.
> >>>> Hope AMD takes 'em to the cleaners.
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Testing mailing list
> >>>> Testing at lists.pcbsd.org
> >>>> http://lists.pcbsd.org/mailman/listinfo/testing
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Interesting...I thought it was a fact that WAS widely known and the
> >>> issue remedied by the order of the FTC in 2000-2001? Circa K7 Athlons.
> >>>
> >>> Intel seems to be quite evil in how they handle some key operations, of
> >>> course, the way they have been "handling" business these days has
> earned
> >>> their appearance in an OpenBSD song ;).
> >>>
> >>
> >> It *is* the Intel Compiler, after all. Nobody has to use it and I'm
> >> not really sure why anybody would try to use it on a non-Intel system
> >> ;)
> >>
> >> -matt
> >>
> >
> > Matt,
> >
> > Bigger picture than just "use something else", imagine all the lost
> revenue
> > for AMD because something showed better benchmarks with Intel versus AMD
> and
> > someone went with Intel as a result. Evil is as evil does. It's funny
> though
> > that when you look at the TOP500, top 3 spots run AMD. HA!
>
> Haha, good point, Arthur. It's definitely a shady thing to do on
> Intel's part but I'm just not surprised to find that an Intel Compiler
> would compile more efficiently on Intel CPU's. I can't imagine a large
> AMD cluster compiling their custom code on anything closed and
> Intel-specific like the Intel Compiler though. Ironically, we're
> trying to get some traction with Intel to get a modern port of the
> compiler on FreeBSD, along with some development tools that are
> currently Windows and Linux specific.
>
> While AMD may have caught Intel with their pants down a few years ago
> and had the edge, there is no doubt that the tide has turned and Intel
> responded with very fast modern CPUs, regardless of what the code is
> compiled on. I'm sure we'll see AMD step it up in their next
> architecture :)
>
> -matt
> _______________________________________________
> Testing mailing list
> Testing at lists.pcbsd.org
> http://lists.pcbsd.org/mailman/listinfo/testing
>
>
I've been experimenting a bit with clang and llvm on FreeBSD/PC-BSD and
Debian lately. I haven't tried doing any performance testing with the
compiled executables against the Intel compiler, but it does compare
favorably with gcc. Really close in execution time, but compiles FAR faster.

-- 
Thanks,
Mike Bybee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.pcbsd.org/pipermail/testing/attachments/20100104/2ca3b3c9/attachment.html 


More information about the Testing mailing list