AMD FX-8320E Performance On Linux

[cocklover]

waste of comments

What a waste of comments, 8 pages with none a single interesting post. Most posts are from two user talking... and we have to use a slow pagination system wasting more time....

?Those who know don?t talk. Those who talk don?t know. Close your mouth, block off your senses, blunt your sharpness, untie your knots, soften your glare, settle your dust. This is the primal identity. Be like the Tao. It can?t be approached or withdrawn from, benefited or harmed, honored or brought into disgrace. It gives itself up continually. That is why it endures.?

[Michael_S]

Isn't D garbage collected? In that case, it will probably never be a real C/C++ replacement, at least not for very low level stuff.

D allows manual memory management and inline assembly, so you can use it as a C replacement. It's not as good as a C++ replacement because at least right now the standard library is all garbage-collected. The two main language designers are trying to re-architect the standard library so you can parameterize your choice and use anything in the standard library with or without garbage collection as you choose. But they just said they're working on it, I don't know if it's six months away or will never happen.

[log0]

D allows manual memory management and inline assembly, so you can use it as a C replacement. It's not as good as a C++ replacement because at least right now the standard library is all garbage-collected. The two main language designers are trying to re-architect the standard library so you can parameterize your choice and use anything in the standard library with or without garbage collection as you choose. But they just said they're working on it, I don't know if it's six months away or will never happen.

Imho Rust has a greater chance to be a C/C++ successor, if there can be one at all.

[Michael_S]

Imho Rust has a greater chance to be a C/C++ successor, if there can be one at all.

Interesting. Why?

[zanny]

Interesting. Why?

Having used both, I agree on Rust being the successor. The problem with D is that it lacks differentiation in its core syntax. It most ways its just a better C++ - but that is not enough motivation to have to rewrite everything in it. Rust turns the syntax on its head, and stops you from stabbing yourself in the foot by default - D still has the lingering issue of "we trust the user not to break everything".

I guess the analogy is that Rust puts a locked door between you and disaster, D puts an unlocked door, C++ has a wide open archway with a welcome sign on it (that has some caution tape over it in the form of C++11/14) and C is an immediate drop down a bottomless pit of disaster.

But since C++ is mostly used in huge projects, having that lock would be super useful where you can break out but you need to explicitly mean to do so.

[Michael_S]

I disagree that D lacks differentiation with C++
- No preprocessor. Instead D has 'static if' compile time evaluation of a large subset of the language. It also has super fast compile times.
- It uses ! for type parameters instead of <>.
- The 'immutable' keyword for transitive immutability of references and the things referred to, which is what const should have been. Also const, which works the same way it does in C++.
- 'string' is an alias for 'immutable char[]'. ( Strings are stored UTF8, so while you can do auto x = astring[2]; what you usually want is auto x = astring.codePointAt(2), which gives you the third unicode character in the string instead of the third char. )
- The 'pure' keyword for functions that have no side effects.
- The 'nothrow' keyword for functions that won't throw an exception under any circumstances except things like system out of memory or of course SIGINT.
- 'opDispatch', which is a way of allowing structs and classes to handle missing methods (like the Ruby 'methodMissing' or Groovy metaclass onMethodMissing).

I'm not familiar with C++11 or C++14, I'm sure they added some cool features of their own and maybe the things I mentioned are present. But I still think D is a good thing.

The best point I have encountered of Rust versus D, and I admit it's a powerful argument, is that in Rust everything is immutable by default and you have to do extra work to deal with mutable state. I think that's fantastic, and I wish D had it.

[log0]

Interesting. Why?

D has been around for how long? How many projects do you know using it? I think D simply has not offered enough advantage over C++ for people to switch. Rust is in a better position here, especially with its safety without compromising performance concept.

[mmstick]

D has been around for how long? How many projects do you know using it? I think D simply has not offered enough advantage over C++ for people to switch. Rust is in a better position here, especially with its safety without compromising performance concept.

I do not think that the age of a language, nor the number of projects using it, is a good measurement for indicating something like language advantages. There are times when even the most obscure languages suddenly become popular decades in advance. If anything, the only reason that D has not taken off as well as it should is that D is not advertised or even known to the majority who were taught C and C++. With so many large projects programmed entirely in these languages, It's like a giant snowball that has grown so large that it's hard to get people to try anything else, regardless of how much better our software would be in the long-term with a better language.

The programming landscape is not a fair playground -- simply being first can make a huge difference in the long-term. If D had been designed around the time of C/C++, chances are that all of our software would be written in D today, and C/C++ would have faded into obscurity. For many, D works perfectly fine as a C++ replacement -- garbage collection or otherwise. Nothing prevents anyone from choosing to use D, or even Rust, for their next software project.

As for Rust, Rust has a long way to go to compete against D. Perhaps due to it's use of LLVM, binaries compiled in Rust today are a magnitude slower than the same code written in D. I also find that in Rust I have to write twice as many lines of code to achieve the same thing in D -- not to mention the fact that a line of Rust is more verbose than a line in D. The standard library is still a complete mess in 1.0 Alpha, and the documentation is, honestly, hard to read and comprehend at times. Rust's debugger is also completely unhelpful nine times out of ten with excessively verbose errors that lack a simple explanation. As a result, it's much harder to learn Rust than it is to learn D -- especially if you already have experience with C-like languages.

[Marc Driftmeyer]

I'm quite pleased running the FX-8350 with 32GB DDR3 1866 on the 990FX Gigabyte UD3 Board.

Building the entire source tree of LLVM/Clang-Clang Extra/LLDB/Compiler-RT/Test-Suites/LLVM Docs-Unit Tests-Examples/Clang-Docs-Unit Tests-Examples/Libc++/Libcxabi [Everything but LLD/Polly enabled] in release mode for X86 averages around

12 minutes, 40 seconds.

And that's just via a standard Seagate 2TB 7200RPM HDD 64MB Cache and not the SSD.

Use the SSD and it's drastically shorter.

That's using all 8 cores.

I'd love to see a comparison between several AMD FX/AMD APUs with Intel from the i3 to the Xeon.

Let's see just where they fall, and then graph those against current prices to garner a bang for your buck comparison.

[necro-lover]

If one is not sure what to think about a cpu company why not just ask Wikipedia about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMA_instruction_set

AMD FMA4 :
"FMA4 is the full version"
"Reduces the load register by non-destructive four-operand form (in the case of FMA4)"
(copy translate from the german article)

Intel FMA3:
"FMA3 requires, however, that the destination register is one of the operand registers, and this will be overwritten." (copy translate from the german article)

So in fact Intel is selling SHIT to the people only because they do not want pay license tax to AMD.

And then the people blaming AMD for having a poor SIMD unit power because they only see the only 4 simd units but blend out any benefit of the AMD SIMD units like FMA4.