Uhhhhhhh.... Dirty Linux..... In black and red, maybe a whip in the symbol.... Sounds sexy.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Clear Linux Now Riding On Linux 4.8.1, Ships AVX2-Optimized Python
Collapse
X
-
-
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!
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.
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
-
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:
-
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:
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostObviously recompiling. We are in opensource world.
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:
-
Originally posted by eydee View PostStill no sign of AMD's Dirty Linux. Where's competition?
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Serafean View PostHow exactly are they enabling AVX instructions? Recompiling with -mavx(2)? or patching the code?
Leave a comment:
-
How exactly are they enabling AVX instructions? Recompiling with -mavx(2)? or patching the code?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eydee View PostStill no sign of AMD's Dirty Linux. Where's competition?
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:
Leave a comment: