From: Steve Ellcey <sellcey@cavium.com>
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,
pmenzel+gcc.gnu.org@molgen.mpg.de
Cc: GCC Development <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: How to get GCC on par with ICC?
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2018 22:08:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1528494436.3449.36.camel@cavium.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc1rpbWREjd8AS3s-uCgsJVX7kqKh_tyjSTysTvpyjieVw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 12:01 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>Â
> When we do our own comparisons of GCC vs. ICC on benchmarks
> like SPEC CPU 2006/2017 ICC doesn't have a big lead over GCC
> (in fact it even trails in some benchmarks) unless you get to
> "SPEC tricks" like data structure re-organization optimizations that
> probably never apply in practice on real-world code (and people
> should fix such things at the source level being pointed at them
> via actually profiling their codes).
Richard,
I was wondering if you have any more details about these comparisions
you have done that you can share? Â Compiler versions, options used,
hardware, etc  Also, were there any tests that stood out in terms of
icc outperforming GCC?
I did a compare of SPEC 2017 rate using GCC 8.* (pre release) and
a recent ICC (2018.0.128?) on my desktop (Xeon CPU E5-1650 v4).
I used '-xHost -O3' for icc and '-march=native -mtune=native -O3'
for gcc.
The int rate numbers (running 1 copy only) were not too bad, GCC was
only about 2% slower and only 525.x264_r seemed way slower with GCC.
The fp rate numbers (again only 1 copy) showed a larger difference,Â
around 20%.  521.wrf_r was more than twice as slow when compiled with
GCC instead of ICC and 503.bwaves_r and 510.parest_r also showed
significant slowdowns when compiled with GCC vs. ICC.
Steve Ellcey
sellcey@cavium.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-08 21:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-06 15:57 Paul Menzel
2018-06-06 16:14 ` Joel Sherrill
2018-06-06 16:20 ` Paul Menzel
2018-06-20 22:42 ` NightStrike
2018-06-21 9:20 ` Richard Biener
2018-06-22 0:48 ` Steve Ellcey
2018-06-06 16:22 ` Bin.Cheng
2018-06-06 18:31 ` Dmitry Mikushin
2018-06-06 21:10 ` Ryan Burn
2018-06-07 10:02 ` Richard Biener
2018-06-06 22:43 ` Zan Lynx
2018-06-07 9:54 ` Richard Biener
2018-06-07 10:06 ` Richard Biener
2018-06-08 22:08 ` Steve Ellcey [this message]
2018-06-09 15:32 ` Marc Glisse
2018-06-11 14:50 ` Martin Jambor
2018-06-22 22:41 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2018-06-15 11:48 Wilco Dijkstra
2018-06-15 17:03 ` Jeff Law
2018-06-15 18:01 ` Joseph Myers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1528494436.3449.36.camel@cavium.com \
--to=sellcey@cavium.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=pmenzel+gcc.gnu.org@molgen.mpg.de \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).