Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

11-Way Intel Ivy Bridge Compiler Comparison

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 11-Way Intel Ivy Bridge Compiler Comparison

    Phoronix: 11-Way Intel Ivy Bridge Compiler Comparison

    From an Intel Core i7 3770K "Ivy Bridge" system here is an 11-way compiler comparison to look at the performance of these popular code compilers on the latest-generation Intel hardware. Among the compilers being compared on Intel's Ivy Bridge platform are multiple releases of GCC, LLVM/Clang, DragonEgg, PathScale EKOPath, and Open64.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17399

  • #2
    Thanks for this article. Nice comparison and the summary was spot on and not biased towards LLVM, which is great to see.

    Comment


    • #3
      Indeed nice article. Any chance of also testing the intel c/c++ compiler?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Wilfred View Post
        Indeed nice article. Any chance of also testing the intel c/c++ compiler?
        If this happens, include some AMD CPUs in the testing for reference..

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Wilfred View Post
          Indeed nice article. Any chance of also testing the intel c/c++ compiler?

          No, I don't have a license and I believe they have some publishing restrictions on it...
          Michael Larabel
          http://www.michaellarabel.com/

          Comment


          • #6
            Throw in PCC?

            Throw in Portable C Compiler (PCC) ?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Michael View Post
              No, I don't have a license and I believe they have some publishing restrictions on it...
              Ah, pity, but thanks for the answer. I keep hearing stories that supposedly the intel compiler is 20 to 30% faster than gcc.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Wilfred View Post
                Ah, pity, but thanks for the answer. I keep hearing stories that supposedly the intel compiler is 20 to 30% faster than gcc.
                Only on Intel, remember.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by curaga View Post
                  Only on Intel, remember.
                  Well obviously not on sparc or arm or so. But it would be interesting to see if the generated binaries would also be faster on AMD hardware.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    So, when are we finally going to see some PGO benchmarks? On some hardware due to PGO you can get ridiculously high speedups; Michael, why are you consistently ignoring this great (and free!) optimization?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Wilfred View Post
                      Indeed nice article. Any chance of also testing the intel c/c++ compiler?
                      Intel C++ Compiler mostly is best optimized Compiler on planet in Intel platform, but it is proprietary and close source. GCC is on second place immediately, Only subordinate to Intel C++.
                       
                      Regarding Clang??? Crappy clang has always been stupid rubbish shit!!!
                      Last edited by China_Guy; 05-30-2012, 11:41 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by kiputnik View Post
                        SOn some hardware due to PGO you can get ridiculously high speedups; Michael, why are you consistently ignoring this great (and free!) optimization?
                        How is PGO free if you have to recompile your application after running it with a representative load (and finding that in the first place)?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Wilfred View Post
                          Well obviously not on sparc or arm or so. But it would be interesting to see if the generated binaries would also be faster on AMD hardware.
                          You've been under a rock perhaps? The binaries by ICC will suck on AMD, VIA and anything else non-Intel x86. See Agner's site for insightful explanations, including benchmarks where he changes his Via to introduce as Intel.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
                            How is PGO free if you have to recompile your application after running it with a representative load (and finding that in the first place)?
                            I think he means 'free' as in 'libre' ... and regardless, it is still free even if you have to do some extra work. (vs. ICC which is not free)

                            As a side note: Firefox is compiled with PGO. I used to have to manually compile Firefox to use PGO ~ and the difference was very noticeable in some situations. However, from what i have seen/the impression that i have gotten is that the source code of a given app has to support it.

                            LTO (Link time optimization) has stabilized in GCC 4.7 ~ it would be interesting to see some benchmarks showing differences there (between non-lto and lto binaries)... LLVM also has LTO, which if i remember correctly is enabled by using the -04 flag. (it might be interesting to compare those too)

                            @Michael - how about an 11-way AMD compiler comparison?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by China_Guy View Post
                              Intel C++ Compiler mostly is best optimized Compiler on planet in Intel platform, but it is proprietary and close source. GCC is on second place immediately, Only subordinate to Intel C++.
                               
                              Regarding Clang??? Crappy clang has always been stupid rubbish shit!!!
                              Except that GCC has always been "stupid rubbish shit" -- and has _intentionally_ been that way due to RMS's paranoia -- except for the barely-relevant part where it produces faster binaries than irrelevant compilers almost nobody uses (Open64) or a compiler that's practically an infant in comparison (Clang/LLVM). Clang matches the performance it took GCC 25 years to achieve, not to mention the fact that it has an equivalent level of language conformance and features (again, from zero to that complete in a teeny tiny fraction of the time it took GCC), plus the so-freaking-awesome toolset support it enables that GCC goes out of its way to make impossible to write.

                              In the few cases where binary performance in a few specialized micro-benchmarks actually matter, it's worth noting that GCC is still not even top dog, so it has the unpleasant distinction of being neither the faster compiler nor the more featureful, flexible, maintainable, extensible compiler. The only crown it can hold is "most popular compiler for UNIX systems." Yay.

                              Without Clang, the world of Open Source compilers would be stuck forever with glorified Notepad apps (Vim, Emacs) and a practically tools-free development environment. With Clang, the FOSS scene actually has a chance to start playing catch-up to Visual Studio / VAX. There's a chance to have actually useful code completion (real-time, no need to regenerate ctags and wait 5 minutes for it to complete), to have powerful code refactoring (nobody but VS/VAX has this yet, which is why it's so important for FOSS to catch up), and most importantly to have a compiler that provides a valid test ground for new language extensions and features to propose to the relevant committees (GCC is a nightmare to extend, maintain, learn, or improve; only a small handful of people can deal with its horrific internals). This is of course why just about every company on the planet with an interest in C/C++ have gotten involved with Clang: it is a massive improvement on all fronts that _actually matter_, and the performance of compiled binaries non-issue can be improved as time goes on (and again, it has improved at a much MUCH faster rater than GCC has).

                              But thanks anyway for your input as a non-developer fanboy. The world would such a worse place without your clueless rants and abuse of fonts.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X