Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Benchmarking GCC 4.2 Through GCC 4.8 On AMD & Intel Hardware

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

  • FireBurn
    replied
    I'd love to see ffmpeg compared with ASM switched off - so we can actually see which is the better compiler of C code and produces the faster binaries - yes I know no one in their right mind would use these binaries on a real system but the results could be normalised against the ASM builds

    Leave a comment:


  • Veerappan
    replied
    Originally posted by birdie View Post
    Michael,

    What GCC flags did you use during testing?
    The compiler flags are underneath each graph. If any specific flags were used (e.g. -O3), they are listed beneath the graph for the individual test. The flags that each compiler was built with are at the bottom of the system specs table.

    I'm guessing that for each of these tests, the flags are the default that are used in the individual PTS test profiles.

    Leave a comment:


  • birdie
    replied
    Michael,

    What GCC flags did you use during testing?

    Leave a comment:


  • RealNC
    replied
    Originally posted by coder543 View Post
    outdated hardware running at vastly different clock speeds and core counts being compared.
    They are not being compared. Only GCC versions are being compared. Perhaps you missed that each image has two groups of comparisons, one for the Intel system, one for the AMD system.

    It's done in the correct way, so that you can compare the performance of the generated code relative to the machine. You are not supposed to compare the Intel results to the AMD results.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    That doesn't invalidate these results in any way?

    Leave a comment:


  • coder543
    replied
    Originally posted by kiwi_kid_aka_bod View Post
    coder543, you seem to have missed the point of the article. It is comparing versions of GCC, not Intel vs. AMD.
    the newer architectures have hugely different personalities and would respond to the different versions of GCC in completely unique ways that these don't.

    Leave a comment:


  • bug77
    replied
    A couple of interesting things I see:
    1. In C-Ray, intel was faster with gcc 4.2, amd ends up faster with gcc 4.7/4.8.
    2. In FLAC audio encoding, the stiuation is actually reversed (though the differences are smaller this time): amd start out on top end ends up at the bottom.

    Leave a comment:


  • kiwi_kid_aka_bod
    replied
    coder543, you seem to have missed the point of the article. It is comparing versions of GCC, not Intel vs. AMD.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder543
    replied
    outdated hardware running at vastly different clock speeds and core counts being compared. This is the most uninformative article from Phoronix in a long time.. can we please compare a Bulldozer Opteron versus Intel's latest and have them run at similar clock speeds with the same number of hardware threads ("cores" for AMD and "threads" for Intel via hyperthreading)? or a Bulldozer Opteron versus an equally priced Intel? either way.

    I know the AMD would probably get stomped, but that would be useful information, and it excited me to see that information so I came here to read it and got disappointed.

    Leave a comment:


  • crazycheese
    replied
    I wonder if GCC hackers actually use PTS for regression testing? While its easy to benchmark and compare side-by-side, personally I have quite a trouble navigating via webinterface.. :/
    And huge thanks for the article!!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X