4 ms·

The MKL is, and ways has been, a marketing tool for Intel. They develop it to make their CPUs look good. Why should they help the other team? This really isn't

The MKL is, and ways has been, a marketing tool for Intel. They develop it to make their CPUs look good. Why should they help the other team? This really isn't news to anyone who cares about linear algebra library performance, it's just that it's passed from general consciousness in the decade since AMD was last relevant. For performance portability to non-Intel CPUs ooenblas and its ilk have always been the way to go. You might think it's a sharp practice, in which case, you're free to vote with your wallet.

yarg 7y ago
At very least, because they're legally obliged to. The anti monopoly laws prohibit companies in Intel's position from doing what they're doing (and they also agreed not to in the settlement for the AMD lawsuit).
- greglindahl 7y ago
  Was that part of the settlement made public? I got subpoenaed by both sides (compiler vendor) but no one told me much about the settlement other than it was a small amount of money to Intel that was a big windfall for AMD.
- kbumsik 7y ago
  > At very least, because they're legally obliged to. Are you sure about that Intel MKL is also applied to that law? Intel MKL is a propriety software by Intel and its system requirements clearly states that it is Intel 64 and IA-32 only. Do you mean that all propriety software made by the hardware manufacturer should support competitor's hardware as well?
  - lawrenceyan 7y ago
    That's false. Intel's MKL library has been repeatedly marketed as a tool for all processors including non-Intel ones. Combined with this fact, Intel's choice to purposefully remove performance enhancements for AMD processor is very clearly in violation of antitrust law.
    - Teknoman117 7y ago
      Except it's not against antitrust law. As long as they document that it may not run well on non-Intel processors, they are in the clear, at least in the US. Is it scummy? Sure, but that was the ruling when this came up for their compiler.
- wmf 7y ago
  Unfortunately the settlement only required Intel to document their deoptimization practices, not change them.
- moonbug 7y ago
  No, they're really not. Here's the ruling, read it for yourself https://ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/101102inteldo.pdf https://ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/101102in...
  - yarg 7y ago
    Thanks for the correction, it was a long time ago and that was how I recalled it, of the top of my head.
celrod 7y ago
OpenBLAS still didn't have adequate avx512 performance the last time I tried it (a few months ago). I think BLIS is the best library for performance portability. MKL offers a lot more than just BLAS and LAPACK. Would be cool for a project like BLIS to expand its scope.

yarg 7y ago

At very least, because they're legally obliged to. The anti monopoly laws prohibit companies in Intel's position from doing what they're doing (and they also agreed not to in the settlement for the AMD lawsuit).

greglindahl 7y ago
Was that part of the settlement made public? I got subpoenaed by both sides (compiler vendor) but no one told me much about the settlement other than it was a small amount of money to Intel that was a big windfall for AMD.
kbumsik 7y ago
> At very least, because they're legally obliged to. Are you sure about that Intel MKL is also applied to that law? Intel MKL is a propriety software by Intel and its system requirements clearly states that it is Intel 64 and IA-32 only. Do you mean that all propriety software made by the hardware manufacturer should support competitor's hardware as well?
- lawrenceyan 7y ago
  That's false. Intel's MKL library has been repeatedly marketed as a tool for all processors including non-Intel ones. Combined with this fact, Intel's choice to purposefully remove performance enhancements for AMD processor is very clearly in violation of antitrust law.
  - Teknoman117 7y ago
    Except it's not against antitrust law. As long as they document that it may not run well on non-Intel processors, they are in the clear, at least in the US. Is it scummy? Sure, but that was the ruling when this came up for their compiler.
wmf 7y ago
Unfortunately the settlement only required Intel to document their deoptimization practices, not change them.
moonbug 7y ago
No, they're really not. Here's the ruling, read it for yourself https://ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/101102inteldo.pdf https://ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/101102in...
- yarg 7y ago
  Thanks for the correction, it was a long time ago and that was how I recalled it, of the top of my head.

celrod 7y ago

OpenBLAS still didn't have adequate avx512 performance the last time I tried it (a few months ago). I think BLIS is the best library for performance portability. MKL offers a lot more than just BLAS and LAPACK. Would be cool for a project like BLIS to expand its scope.