This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C Optimization Tests, 1 May 2004, tree-ssa/3.5/3.4/icc
- From: Kevin Atkinson <kevina at gnu dot org>
- To: Scott Robert Ladd <coyote at coyotegulch dot com>
- Cc: gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 01:11:30 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: C Optimization Tests, 1 May 2004, tree-ssa/3.5/3.4/icc
On Mon, 3 May 2004, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> AMD64/Opteron 240 (1.4GHz)
> Gentoo AMD64 64-bit Linux 2.6.5
> Compiled on a Pentium 4 with: -O3 -ffast-math -march=athlon-mp
> -D__NO_MATH_LINES -D__NO_STRING_INLINES -mfpmath=sse
>
> test tree-ssa mainline 3.4.1
> ---- -------- -------- --------
> alma 22.6 51.7 69.0
> evo 60.9 60.4 61.6
> fft 37.6 37.3 37.4
> huff 30.3 27.1 30.3
> lin 31.2 30.2 30.3
> mat1 29.5 29.6 29.5
> mole 33.9 34.0 34.5
> tree 40.6 37.3 36.7
> -------- -------- --------
> total 286.7 307.7 329.4
>
>
> With minor exceptions, 64-bit "-march=opteron" code out-performs 32-bit
> "-march=athlon-mp" code. Not surprising, really. Also, tree-ssa
> obviously knows something about alma that mainline and 3.4 don't.
I expect the 64-bit code to perform better. What I am after is the
relative numbers between the branches. I am not sure if the relative
numbers will match a true Athlon but I have a felling it is pretty close.
> I'm unlikely to do the above on a regular basis, since I think this type
> of pseudo-cross-compiling is unlikely to produce accurate results for a
> processor I don't have.
>
> As my original post says, I only run benchmarks on the hardware I have
> at hand. You are more than welcome to run the benchmarks yourself; just
> e-mail me privately, and I'll send you the beta benchmark suite.
If I get a change I may take you up on your offer and run it on my two
machines, AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2600+, and Pentium III (Katmai) 500. And see
how those compare to what you just did. But it will involve compiling
several branches which I don't normally do.
--
http://kevin.atkinson.dhs.org