Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (122468)	12/13/2000 1:27:08 AM
From: Scumbria	Respond to of 186894

Ten, I'll bet you do nothing but compile Linux kernels all day, right? That is actually a very interesting question. Remember that I bought this computer to install Linux, and specifically to start doing Linux builds as part of a CPU design verification effort. Scumbria

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (122468)	12/13/2000 8:41:30 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: if Athlon is so good at gcc, perl, gzip, and other SPECint programs, why hasn't AMD published any SPECint scores It seems that SPEC mandates the use of some older, very poorly performing routines under the guise of maintaining cross platform equality, and it is against the rules to update the code. But if you have a compiler that recognizes the spec code sequences and substitutes updated algorithms as an "optimization" it is within the rules. Intel really is cheating on SPEC - but cheating within the rules, I suppose. The SPEC performance is representative only of SPEC, with competing systems crippled by their use of the real source code, while Intel's compiler substitutes different routines when optimized for Intel chips. Anyone running anything remotely like spec on a machine should know better than compile the source to BLAS. IF not then.. they are either very new or well .. I won't comment on that. BUT COMPILING SPEC BLAS cripples performance folks and to ME and others out there like PER, EMIL BRIGS and others .. this spec performance doesn't reflect reality. Link to real fast math libraries publicly available, this isn't proprietary stuff, and give me the numbers. I've spoken with a couple people at SPEC and I get the run around that linking to fast math libraries isn't representative of what the average joe is capable of. Well I get the feeling that they think we are a bunch of ignorant asses or something. It's very simple to do this in CVF 6.5 ... if anybody wants to know: GO INTO SETTINGS ==> SELECT FORTRAN ==> EXTERNAL PROC ==> Select C by reference external linking GO INTO SETTINGS ==> SELECT LINK ==> INPUT ==> Put names of libraries in "Object/library modules" Put path to libraries in "Additional library path" now that's not too difficult and everybody here is smart enough to figure that out. These math libraries are free. Use them SPEC. Message 15015745