Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Clear Linux Now Riding On Linux 4.8.1, Ships AVX2-Optimized Python

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

  • curaga
    replied
    Uhhhhhhh.... Dirty Linux..... In black and red, maybe a whip in the symbol.... Sounds sexy.
    Perhaps you want Ubuntu Satanic? Ships with great themes and music, in the colors you desire.

    Leave a comment:


  • zboson
    replied
    Originally posted by edwaleni View Post

    As long as AMD supports the same instructions Intel is supplying, who cares whose Linux it is.

    Push on!
    As long as Clear Linux compiles everything with GCC then AMD probably does not have to worry with regards to Zen. But the Intel C/C++ compiler is known for creating a CPU dispatcher which checks for a genuine Intel tag in CPUID and using crippled code otherwise. AMD also has used XOP and FMA4 in some of their libraries which Intel does not use. That's not nearly as bad as vetoing based on checking if the processor in Intel or AMD rather than checking if the instructions are supported.

    Zen from what I hear won't support XOP and maybe not FMA4. XOP is actually a good instruction set and FM4 makes more sense than FMA3 (which has to have several variants because it does not have a forth operator). It's embarrassing that Intel's instruction set up to AVX2 still does not have an unsigned 64-bit SIMD compare operator (unlike XOP) though AVX512 (if we ever get it) will.

    But even without XOP and FMA4 there are still reasons you would want to compile different binaries for Intel and AMD. The Bulldozer architecture has several issues with AVX which means you need to treat AVX code for AMD and Intel differently for optimization. So there is a good reason an AMD optimized Linux would be good for the Bulldozer set.

    In short as long as AMD fixes its problems with AVX in Zen and Clear Linux uses GCC I think there would be no reason for an AMD version of Linux for Zen (assuming Zen does not introduce any newer and better x86 instructions).

    BTW there are some that suspect that the reason we don't have AVX512 now is because Intel has done so much damage to AMD (and AMD made some stupid decisions with the Bulldozer micro-architecture) that they are laying low waiting for AMD to improve with Zen.
    Last edited by zboson; 18 October 2016, 12:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • uid313
    replied
    Does Ubuntu 16.10 have Linux 4.8.0, 4.8.1 or 4.8.2?

    It's name is something like 4.8.0-22.24. Not sure exactly how to interpret that.

    Leave a comment:


  • riklaunim
    replied
    I wonder if i7-5500U would be a good for Clear Linux? It's not Skylake so less wayland support, but still, an Intel-only laptop

    Leave a comment:


  • Serafean
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    Obviously recompiling. We are in opensource world.
    Actually not so obvious. I don't know where to find their buildscripts.
    There are a few things they could be doing :
    - Simple recompile with -march=xxx
    - recompile with "random" other flags (like for instance -msse2avx which transfroms SSE instructions to AVX instructions)
    - patch code with pure assembler
    - patch code to give compiler better hints to use vectorized instructions (and optimize cache usage and whatnot).

    Leave a comment:


  • geearf
    replied
    Originally posted by eydee View Post
    Still no sign of AMD's Dirty Linux. Where's competition?
    It's Clear not Clean.
    So opposites would be Foggy, Vague, etc

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by eydee View Post
    Still no sign of AMD's Dirty Linux. Where's competition?
    Uhhhhhhh.... Dirty Linux..... In black and red, maybe a whip in the symbol.... Sounds sexy.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by Serafean View Post
    How exactly are they enabling AVX instructions? Recompiling with -mavx(2)? or patching the code?
    Obviously recompiling. We are in opensource world.

    Leave a comment:


  • Serafean
    replied
    How exactly are they enabling AVX instructions? Recompiling with -mavx(2)? or patching the code?

    Leave a comment:


  • edwaleni
    replied
    Originally posted by eydee View Post
    Still no sign of AMD's Dirty Linux. Where's competition?
    AMD is counting their pennies until Zen gets out the door. Why waste their precious dollars on AV products (McAfee), defunct wireless standards (WiMax) and non-competitive mobility products (Atom) along with a Linux build?

    As long as AMD supports the same instructions Intel is supplying, who cares whose Linux it is.

    I kind of like the idea that a CPU maker is pushing the Linux envelope.

    When I asked a vendor if their product had AVX2 support, I got the deer eyes and crickets.

    Intel spent millions developing the hardware, now they are spending millions to get people to actually use it.

    Push on!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X