Good to see AMD improving core libraries for their hw. Seems strange they haven't bothered before considering they're spending several hundreds of $millions to develop their next generation microarchitecture, giving a performance boost of, what, 10-20% (?) compared to the previous generation, but they can't afford to keep a few engineers on staff to make sure critical core infrastructure like Linux kernel, glibc, gcc, clang, openblas etc. work optimally on their HW which would give a similar performance boost for many applications.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
AMD Developers Looking At GNU C Library Platform Optimizations For Zen
Collapse
X
-
I would argue that Intel is more of the exception than the rule. It's nice that they have the resources to spend on all of these areas, but they are more of an exception due to their sheer size. Consider all of the other hw companies contributing to various open source projects. It should be noted that AMD or AMD funded work is already in the top contributions to many of these projects.
- Likes 9
Comment
-
Originally posted by ddriver View Post
AVX2 is 256bit. The size of the actual physical registers is irrelevant and completely transparent from the perspective of a software developer. It is not a concern how the underlying uarch handles the issued instructions, even zen 1 supports avx2 perfectly fine, even if the instructions take more cycles to complete.
i.e. flipping this on by default for AMD architectures willgreatly benefit Zen2, but might actually slow down Zen1.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by GruenSein View Post2. When AMD wanted to get DC, which is now known as DAL, mainlined, they were held up for months because their working implementation was not generic enough. The maintainers correctly pointed out that their code was highly specific to their drivers with many abstractions which might hold back a wider adoption by other drivers and was in sharp contrast to the general coding style.
Originally posted by GruenSein View PostInterestingly, this was no issue for Intel in this instance.
Originally posted by GruenSein View PostAny maintainer could've asked them to implement a generic CPU capability detection. That obviously didn't happen.
- Likes 6
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedibeeftrix View Post
is this because Zen 1 can only do AVX2 back packing together two 128bit operations to achieve a 256bit AVX2 calc?
i.e. flipping this on by default for AMD architectures willgreatly benefit Zen2, but might actually slow down Zen1.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by Space Heater View Postjust imagine the outrage if Intel added some optimizations for AVX2 that caused a *regression* on AMD systems.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by ddriver View PostThey have done tremendously worse, deliberately I might add, and got away with it more or less unscathed, that wouldn't be outrageous against their track record, it would be banal and overly expected.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ddriver View PostI really don't get the "spoiled" mentality. Contributions are welcome, but it doesn't mean that's what you exclusively rely on. It is not only in the interest of amd but also in the interest of the product's developers that it runs optimally across all hardware.
I have several friends working in AAA game studios, and that's basically their rationale for not optimizing for radeon - "nvidia does our job for us and gives us trinkets, and gives us nothing"...
- Likes 6
Comment
-
Originally posted by ddriver View PostI really don't get the "spoiled" mentality. Contributions are welcome, but it doesn't mean that's what you exclusively rely on. It is not only in the interest of amd but also in the interest of the product's developers that it runs optimally across all hardware.
I have several friends working in AAA game studios, and that's basically their rationale for not optimizing for radeon - "nvidia does our job for us and gives us trinkets, and gives us nothing"...
- Likes 2
Comment
Comment