On Thursday 24 February 2005 17.06, Richard Guenther wrote:
> I just got interested and did a test myself. Comparing gcc 4.0 (-O2
> -funroll-loops -D__NO_MATH_INLINES -ffast-math -march=pentium4
> -mfpmath=sse -ftree-vectorize)
> and icc 9.0 beta (-O3 -xW -ip):
> gcc 4.0 icc 9.0
> Composite Score: 543.65 609.20
> FFT Mflops: 313.71 318.29
> SOR Mflops: 441.96 426.32
> MonteCarlo: Mflops: 105.68 71.20
> Sparse matmult Mflops: 574.88 891.65
> LU Mflops: 1282.00 1338.56
>
> which looks not too bad ;)
>
> Richard.
Hi Richard,
thanks a lot for your test. I have redone it, the way you suggest, and
I do
find:
GCC4.0 ICC 8.1 GCC 3.4.1
Composite Score: 330.18 384.53 361.55
FFT Mflops: 206.66 193.80 206.66
SOR Mflops: 264.91 398.13 253.55
MC Mflops: 63.91 61.29 67.45
Sparse matmult : 348.60 436.91 469.79
LU Mflops: 767.04 832.52 810.29
I would leave aside ICC 8.1 because (as I have showed in my previous message)
I can choose other flags and get a speed rise of about 50%. I would
take your optimisation flags for GCC better than mine, since they increase the
composite score of both (which is what matters to me). Even so, there is at
least one place where - if I can say that - we have a regression.
Ready to test again,
Biagio
--
=========================================================
Biagio Lucini
Institut Fuer Theoretische Physik
ETH Hoenggerberg
CH-8093 Zuerich - Switzerland
Tel. +41 (0)1 6332562
=========================================================
