Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: GCC 4.8.0 vs. LLVM Clang 3.3 Compiler Performance

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,126

    Default GCC 4.8.0 vs. LLVM Clang 3.3 Compiler Performance

    Phoronix: GCC 4.8.0 vs. LLVM Clang 3.3 Compiler Performance

    In preparation for the upcoming release of LLVM 3.3, here is an extensive round of C/C++ benchmarks from GCC 4.8.0, LLVM Clang 3.2, and LLVM Clang 3.3-rc1 to look at the Linux compiler performance. Benchmarks happened from three different systems bearing Intel Core i7 3960X, AMD FX-8350, and Intel Core i3 3217U processors for a diverse look at the performance.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18737

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    355

    Default

    Interesting, I remember the last time clang was tested using an AMD CPU the performance was abysmal compared to GCC.

    edit:
    and for being ~$800 cheaper, the FX-8350 performs pretty well in general.
    Last edited by peppercats; 05-25-2013 at 01:42 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peppercats View Post
    the FX-8350 performs pretty well in general.
    I'm very surprised about FX perfomance in some tests.

    Clang: seems like next release will finally beat GCC, and be a good replacement for it (except OpenMP).

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by leonmaxx View Post
    I'm very surprised about FX perfomance in some tests.

    Clang: seems like next release will finally beat GCC, and be a good replacement for it (except OpenMP).
    I'm not surprised at all, anything that is heavily parallel strongly favours the Bulldozer/Pilerdriver architecture, such that in some benchmarks on other sites it trounced the i7 3990X.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    I'm not surprised at all, anything that is heavily parallel strongly favours the Bulldozer/Pilerdriver architecture, such that in some benchmarks on other sites it trounced the i7 3990X.
    Yeah, the issue is just finding the right benchmark to fully exploit the hardware. Your typical desktop workload is going to be a lot slower since it's mostly single threaded.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Yeah, the issue is just finding the right benchmark to fully exploit the hardware. Your typical desktop workload is going to be a lot slower since it's mostly single threaded.
    Well here's the thing... that's not really true for one simple reason a desktop workload unlike a benchmark (outside of gaming) doesn't consist of running a single application at a time, just an example from myself I've got firefox open with a number of tabs, my IDE, a konsole, my chat clients and dolphin, as well as stuff like dropbox running in the background. any one of these (ignoring the coding and thus compiling) is not particularly heavily threaded but since I'm running all these things I'm taking advantage of more cores. It's certainly not enough to push it up to beating a 3990X but that's besides the point.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by leonmaxx View Post
    I'm very surprised about FX perfomance in some tests.

    Clang: seems like next release will finally beat GCC, and be a good replacement for it (except OpenMP).
    Except that it only was faster in two tests (in one of them only on one single CPU out of 3) and slower in everything else… (I don’t count compile times as tests).

    But you summarized nicely how misleading the text of this article is - again

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArneBab View Post
    Except that it only was faster in two tests (in one of them only on one single CPU out of 3) and slower in everything else… (I don’t count compile times as tests).

    But you summarized nicely how misleading the text of this article is - again
    Under "next release" i mean Clang 3.4 or later... Sorry for my bad English.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •