Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Clang Fights GCC On AMD's Athlon AM1 APU With Jaguar Cores

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

  • Clang Fights GCC On AMD's Athlon AM1 APU With Jaguar Cores

    Phoronix: Clang Fights GCC On AMD's Athlon AM1 APU With Jaguar Cores

    A few days ago I did my latest benchmarks of GCC vs. LLVM/Clang and that was using an Intel Core i7 4770K "Haswell" processor. The tables have now turned and in this article are GCC vs. LLVM Clang benchmarks of the AMD Athlon 5350 APU with four Jaguar CPU cores.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20248

  • Filiprino
    replied
    I won't switch to LLVM/Clang even if it's the absolute winner on all benchmarks by a big margin.

    And some compilation benchmarks really show a suspecting difference. The compilation on LLVM/Clang is parallelized by default? I know that on GCC that's not true.

    Leave a comment:


  • wizard69
    replied
    Micheal, the compilation times seem to be out if the norm here

    I know CLang is fast but this seems to be excessively fast in the compiling tests. This makes me wonder why, is Clang making better use if all of the cores in the machine? Or maybe GCC wasn't using the cores at all. I expect better compiling times but these are a blow out.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    Originally posted by doom_Oo7 View Post
    I guess an architecture might be conceivable (by the same monkeys, at the same time), where -O2 == -march=native
    You want the monkeys to start doing CPU design? Wait a minute...

    Leave a comment:


  • doom_Oo7
    replied
    Originally posted by Veerappan View Post
    Don't forget the comparison against an infinite group of monkeys with keyboards simultaneously writing hamlet, and the binary versions of the compiled code for the debian archive. Whether the monkeys target -march=native, or just -O2 is an exercise left to the reader.
    I guess an architecture might be conceivable (by the same monkeys, at the same time), where -O2 == -march=native

    Leave a comment:


  • hubicka
    replied
    Originally posted by Calinou View Post
    It would be a better idea to compile full-featured programs and games instead of synthetic benchmarks (compilation time + run-time performance).
    I recently ran Firefox benchmarks on AMD hardware http://hubicka.blogspot.ca/2014/04/l...2-firefox.html

    Leave a comment:


  • wizard69
    replied
    Originally posted by Veerappan View Post
    Don't forget the comparison against an infinite group of monkeys with keyboards simultaneously writing hamlet, and the binary versions of the compiled code for the debian archive. Whether the monkeys target -march=native, or just -O2 is an exercise left to the reader.
    You guys are so silly. Monkeys can't code you need to get a Siberian Husky to do that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Veerappan
    replied
    Originally posted by doom_Oo7 View Post
    Timed compilation of the common subset of the GCC & Clang compilable-software of the whole Debian archive, followed by latency (latencytop anyone?) and performance tests
    Don't forget the comparison against an infinite group of monkeys with keyboards simultaneously writing hamlet, and the binary versions of the compiled code for the debian archive. Whether the monkeys target -march=native, or just -O2 is an exercise left to the reader.

    Leave a comment:


  • doom_Oo7
    replied
    Originally posted by Calinou View Post
    It would be a better idea to compile full-featured programs and games instead of synthetic benchmarks (compilation time + run-time performance).
    Timed compilation of the common subset of the GCC & Clang compilable-software of the whole Debian archive, followed by latency (latencytop anyone?) and performance tests

    Leave a comment:


  • Calinou
    replied
    It would be a better idea to compile full-featured programs and games instead of synthetic benchmarks (compilation time + run-time performance).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X