Initial Benchmarks Of The AMD AOCC 5.0 Compiler On 5th Gen EPYC

[sabian2008]

Nice benchmarks

Would be great to see some Fortran tests and a comparison with ifort and ifx. I still get my fastest binaries for Fortran HPC code using ifort, even on Epyc nodes.

[dkokron]

Does anyone else think including the Intel compilers in this type of comparison would be a tremendous service to the community?

[elfurbe]

So I just pulled down aocc 5.0.0 to rebuild SVT-AV1 and I'm seeing a lot of this message during compilation:

clang: warning: Unsupported lto mode -flto=thin, falling back to -flto=full.

I did not get that with aocc 4.2.0.

phoronix did you see this also when you built it SVT-AV1? Maybe AMD forgot to enable thin lto when they built this new clang?

[Kjell]

Are there any downsides to using AOCC for everything (apart from slightly outdated Clang)?

[sophisticles]

I'm of the school of thought that says that you should always use the vendor supplied compiler, even when there is little immediately noticeable difference.

To me AMD went through the trouble of creating this compiler for these processors, use them all the time, in some cases you will see a nice performance gain, in some no gain, but it doesn't look like it hurts performance at all and for the sake of simplicity just use AOCC and call it a day.

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Initial Benchmarks Of The AMD AOCC 5.0 Compiler On 5th Gen EPYC

Last week when launching the AMD EPYC 9005 "Turin" processors, on the same day AOCC 5.0 was quietly released as the newest version of AMD's Zen-focused compiler derived from LLVM/Clang. With not only adding AMD Zen 5 "znver5" support but also additional vectorization improvements and other performance optimizations, I was eager to run some benchmarks of AOCC 5.0 against the open-source GCC and LLVM/Clang compilers. Here are those initial benchmarks using dual AMD EPYC 9755 128-core Zen 5 processors.

https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-aocc-5