3 ms·
> Those look like benchmarks comparing just autovectorized compilation of some tools and measuring overall runtime. I am referring to cases of hand tuned use SI
by rumanator 6y ago
> Those look like benchmarks comparing just autovectorized compilation of some tools and measuring overall runtime. I am referring to cases of hand tuned use SIMD.
I presented data that showed that AVX-512 in reality only brings margins performance improvements.
If you have any data that shows otherwise then feel free to present it.
Still, hand-tuned assembly is hardly a relevant example, let alone selling point, as it creates hypothetical expectations that are never ever matched in reality.
- vardump 6y ago"Still, hand-tuned assembly is hardly a relevant example, let alone selling point, as it creates hypothetical expectations that are never ever matched in reality." There's a ton of hand tuned assembly running on your system in numerous libraries. Media and data compression? Hand tuned assembly. Matrix math? You guessed it. C-standard library functions? Yes, really.
- greyhair 6y agoMaybe for media, crypto, things like that, but we all have the source for the C-standard libaries, and there is not all that much assembly in there given the size of the code base. Certainly you have required architecture instructions for things like instruction scheduling (isync/dsync), stack manipulation (setjump/longjump and others) or floating point, but though it looks like a lot of assembly source, it is really just a little bit for each of the many supported architectures in the tree. And most of it isn't performance related, it is just plain required because architectures vary on things like instruction scheduling and stack/cache manipulation.