3 ms·

I'm pretty well versed in the SIMD instruction sets, thank you. You might surmise that from the fact that I'm writing and benchmarking SIMD code.... I was resp

I'm pretty well versed in the SIMD instruction sets, thank you. You might surmise that from the fact that I'm writing and benchmarking SIMD code.... I was responding to: "Also not sure why they include the 3-d particle thing without AVX" in which the op was not clear which AVX instruction set they were referring to. It seemed to be a difference benchmark from the one which had avx-512 disabled, due to the word "also"

seminatl 7y ago
So aside from your irrelevant comments about AVX2 being about even between the two parts, what is a reasonable explanation for the second chart on page 4 of the article, assuming you can bother yourself to go read it. Their analysis seems to be essentially that if the Intel part wasn't 300% faster, then the AMD part would be 15% faster. But it is a fact that the Intel part is really three times faster on this benchmark, because of AVX-512. The only reason to include the chart with AVX disabled is to fit the article into a prejudiced narrative.