Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sun Studio 12 vs. GCC3 vs. GCC4 Benchmarks

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by llama View Post
    I tried to find the benchmark results on http://global.phoronix-test-suite.com/?k=search_results by searching for "solaris" in the operating system field. I did find a 40 second LAME result labeled SunStudio_OpenSolaris: http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...186-4598-27835
    It is my result. I was very surprised by result in LAME and I launched test on my machine (Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 2.33GHz), but I built LAME with "-fast" option.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by llama View Post
      I tried to find the benchmark results on http://global.phoronix-test-suite.com/?k=search_results by searching for "solaris" in the operating system field. I did find a 40 second LAME result labeled SunStudio_OpenSolaris: http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...186-4598-27835
      It is my result. I was surprised by first result and I launched LAME test on my machine (Intel Cole 2 Quad Q8200 2.33GHz), but I built LAME by Sun Studio Express with "-fast" option.

      Comment


      • #18
        GCC 3.4.3 with default options - 43.49s
        CXXFLAGS="-fast" - 40.71s
        CXXFLAGS="-fast -xarch=native64 -xvector=simd -xipo" - 38.25s

        Comment


        • #19


          Ref: http://www.genunix.org/distributions...global-x86.iso

          Based on the correct compiler flags when using Sun Studio 12 on the tested AMD64 hardware (i.e. -fast -xarch=amd64a -xipo=2), we saw the
          LAME test performance improve to beat the Ubuntu 8.10 scores (i.e. 38s-40s) mentioned in the article!

          We believe that the OS-2008.11 and the newer OS 2008.11-b107 (i.e. which properly matches the Ubuntu 8.10 specs) and the use of Sun Studio 12 or Blastwave.org's GCC 4.3.3 port (see: http://blastwave.network.com/testing...386-CSW.pkg.gz) can match or beat all of the Ubuntu 8.10/9.10 benchmarks hands down.

          Comment


          • #20
            Compile time??

            I think this article is more fair than the earlier articles. But there are some complaints still.

            For instance, why focus on compile time? If the resulting code is twice as slow but compiles 10 secs faster, is it good? UPDATE: see below.

            Obviously it is difficult to do good benchmarks with compilers. Maybe SUN and GCC people should have given their input. But this is a better article I think. Thanks phoronix for listening and willing to try again!




            UPDATE: As Ex-Cyber pointed it out, there is no focus on compile time. I take it back. In fact pointers on compile time can be important. I like this test better than the earlier ones.
            Last edited by kebabbert; 02-25-2009, 06:43 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
              For instance, why focus on compile time? If the resulting code is twice as slow but compiles 10 secs faster, is it good?
              It's good for developers, particularly when trying to fix bugs in large projects. Besides, I didn't see the article "focus" on compile time at all; it was just one benchmark presented alongside a bunch of others.

              Comment


              • #22
                I think it's a good benchmark. It does exactly what it says: compares GCC 3.4 and 4.0 against Sun Studio 12. Of course we don't use those ancient GCC versions anymore, but the benchmark never mentioned it tests anything newer than GCC 4.0.

                As for testing compilation speed, any compiler benchmark has to test it, regardless of whether people consider it useless or not. It's a must to test.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
                  It's good for developers, particularly when trying to fix bugs in large projects. Besides, I didn't see the article "focus" on compile time at all; it was just one benchmark presented alongside a bunch of others.
                  Yes, maybe you are right. There was no "focus" on compile time in the article. I want to take my first post back. Apologize for that.

                  Anyway, I like this test better than the others. I would like GCC people to also give their input. Not only SUN people. Otherwise it isnt fair if only SUN people can give input.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I am currently very short in time because of my "official" work, but I will definitely perform some Intel vs. gcc tests on some Linux apps when possible.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
                      It's good for developers, particularly when trying to fix bugs in large projects. Besides, I didn't see the article "focus" on compile time at all; it was just one benchmark presented alongside a bunch of others.
                      yeah... not really.

                      build systems typically only rebuild changed parts, and as such the compiletime is very minimal whilst developing. Furthermore, with quadcore+ workstations, its practically irellevant.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Redeeman View Post
                        build systems typically only rebuild changed parts
                        That's the idea. Sometimes it doesn't really work, or other circumstances minimize the benefit (some projects have single files that take a while to build, for example).

                        Originally posted by Redeeman View Post
                        Furthermore, with quadcore+ workstations, its practically irellevant.
                        Lots of people don't have such workstations yet.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Also, some projects do not use a build system (OpenLieroX, I'm looking at you!)

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X