5 ms·
But it's irrelevant if it works faster than intel
by dpacmittal 7y ago
But it's irrelevant if it works faster than intel
- hamandcheese 7y agoIt’s not irrelevant if Intel has tools to let you close that gap easily.
- jfkebwjsbx 7y agoTools can't close a gap of entire cores, much less twice or more of them.
- mlyle 7y agoExtreme example: MKL on AMD is 3x slower than on Intel. Meanwhile, if you lie to it and say you're an Intel part, MKL is 20% faster than Intel...
- kohtatsu 7y agoIt's a matter of principle. Some people don't want cores that you can't gather insight into how you are spending/wasting their time. I'm not a direct customer of Intel or AMD, but in general I would trade off clock speed/cores/cost for insight into what my software is doing.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- oneplane 7y agoUnless you're doing low-level stuff no developer is going to be aware that this even exists, much less capable enough to use it. There are more 'programmers' than 'engineers'...
- mlyle 7y agoAn extreme example of the tooling gap: MKL. Intel made MKL and used CPUID and instruction set optimizations in a non-conformant way that penalizes AMD; it's a fair bit faster than OpenBLAS on (to-date) dominant Intel hardware. If you make CPUID lie to it that it's an Intel part, it'll use AVX2, and Threadripper parts will beat Xeon by a 20% margin. Otherwise it's 200%+ slower. Meanwhile, MKL has been a fair bit faster than OpenBLAS, etc on Xeon ("pretend to be Intel" MKL and OpenBLAS are about the same speed on AMD), so all kinds of software is linked against Intel MKL. When you have core libraries tuned for Intel, either because Intel makes them themselves or because the tooling for performance tuning on AMD hasn't been present, Intel has a software tuning advantage that helps hide AMD's current silicon performance advantage.