public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org>
To: Jack Lloyd <lloyd@acm.jhu.edu>, "Gcc@Gnu. Org" <gcc@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Benchmarks gcc 3.0.4 (soon 3.1) vs. Intel C++ 6.0
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 08:42:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020509152022.A73F72CA55@inet1.ywave.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33L2.0205091025540.15140-100000@fomalhaut.galaxy.acm.jhu.edu>

On Thursday 09 May 2002 07:33, Jack Lloyd wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2002, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > Note that comparing gcc to Intel C++, Intel C++ seems to win for numeric
> > code, while for integer code, the results are usually much more balanced.
>
> I just yesterday got a copy of Intel C++ 6.0 and compiled benchmarks of a
> bunch of integer heavy code (virtually no fp used). I found GCC 3.0.4 to be
> significantly faster.
>
> GCC: -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -fstrict-aliasing -march=athlon
> ICC: -O2 -tp i686 -ip
>
> YMMV and all that. -Jack
icc's equivalent to -fstrict-aliasing is -ansi.  It's not a default. AFAIK, 
the -tp options most likely to work well on Athlon are -tpp6 (P-II/III) or 
-tpp7 (P4), and you should be using -xi (P-II) or -xK (P-III/Palomino) 
options, unless you want the default 586 code.  The -axK option will generate 
both a 586 and a P-III code path, but the Athlon will take the 586.  Triumph 
of Intel marketing.
-- 
Tim Prince

  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-05-09 15:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-05-09  5:50 Scott Robert Ladd
2002-05-09  6:21 ` Jan Hubicka
2002-05-09  6:33   ` Scott Robert Ladd
2002-05-09  7:04     ` Jan Hubicka
2002-05-09  7:12       ` Scott Robert Ladd
2002-05-09  7:37         ` Jan Hubicka
2002-05-09  8:54         ` Updated: " Scott Robert Ladd
2002-05-09 10:43           ` Neil Booth
2002-05-09  7:41       ` Jack Lloyd
2002-05-09  8:20         ` # of untested cases 22 for alpha g++ only 9 for intel bemis
2002-05-09 11:39           ` Compilation Error on alphas bemis
2002-05-09  8:42         ` Tim Prince [this message]
2002-05-09  8:48         ` Benchmarks gcc 3.0.4 (soon 3.1) vs. Intel C++ 6.0 Scott Robert Ladd
2002-05-09 11:22         ` law
2002-05-10 14:17           ` Jack Lloyd
2002-05-09  7:41   ` Tim Prince
2002-05-09  7:48     ` Tim Prince
2002-05-09  8:50 Erik Schnetter
2002-05-09  9:04 ` Tim Prince
2002-05-09  9:33 ` Daniel Berlin
2002-05-09 14:08   ` Tim Prince
2002-05-09  9:54 kelley.r.cook
2002-05-09 10:45 ` law
2002-05-09 15:56 Robert Dewar

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=20020509152022.A73F72CA55@inet1.ywave.com \
    --to=tprince@computer.org \
    --cc=gcc@gnu.org \
    --cc=lloyd@acm.jhu.edu \
    /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).