Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GCC 4.9 vs. LLVM Clang 3.5 On Intel's Haswell-E Platform Under Linux

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

  • GCC 4.9 vs. LLVM Clang 3.5 On Intel's Haswell-E Platform Under Linux

    Phoronix: GCC 4.9 vs. LLVM Clang 3.5 On Intel's Haswell-E Platform Under Linux

    With my Intel Core i7 5960X Haswell-E Linux review out there, one of the quick to be requested extra tests is benchmarking the i7-5960X 16-thread processor with LLVM/Clang against GCC. Here's some initial data comparing the compilers for this $1000+ processor...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTc4NTc

  • #2
    I like these boiled down charts for the less ground breaking benchmarks, but they could be turned slightly more sexy I think

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by AJenbo View Post
      I like these boiled down charts for the less ground breaking benchmarks, but they could be turned slightly more sexy I think
      Patches welcome for the Phoronix Test Suite to improve the "sexiness" of the graph.... Or at the very least provide some examples of such rendered charts.
      Michael Larabel
      http://www.michaellarabel.com/

      Comment


      • #4
        WTF is going on with John the Ripper under LLVM??

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by mendieta View Post
          WTF is going on with John the Ripper under LLVM??
          No OpenMP support....
          Michael Larabel
          http://www.michaellarabel.com/

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Michael View Post
            No OpenMP support....
            Then test it against Intel's branch.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
              Then test it against Intel's branch.
              This is a comparison just against the mainline compilers since that's what most people use and what's packaged by the distributions. If you're curious about LLVM OpenMP, there's this article focusing on that matter - http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20488
              Michael Larabel
              http://www.michaellarabel.com/

              Comment


              • #8
                Under i7-3630qm for scimark

                Under i7-3630qm for scimark

                LLVM-3.5
                Code:
                **                                                              **
                ** SciMark2 Numeric Benchmark, see http://math.nist.gov/scimark **
                ** for details. (Results can be submitted to [email protected])     **
                **                                                              **
                Using       2.00 seconds min time per kenel.
                Composite Score:         1898.71
                FFT             Mflops:  1237.14    (N=1024)
                SOR             Mflops:  1573.29    (100 x 100)
                MonteCarlo:     Mflops:   500.75
                Sparse matmult  Mflops:  2132.57    (N=1000, nz=5000)
                LU              Mflops:  4049.82    (M=100, N=100)
                GCC-4.9.1
                Code:
                **                                                              **
                ** SciMark2 Numeric Benchmark, see http://math.nist.gov/scimark **
                ** for details. (Results can be submitted to [email protected])     **
                **                                                              **
                Using       2.00 seconds min time per kenel.
                Composite Score:         1898.71
                FFT             Mflops:  1237.14    (N=1024)
                SOR             Mflops:  1573.29    (100 x 100)
                MonteCarlo:     Mflops:   500.75
                Sparse matmult  Mflops:  2132.57    (N=1000, nz=5000)
                LU              Mflops:  4049.82    (M=100, N=100)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Michael View Post
                  This is a comparison just against the mainline compilers since that's what most people use and what's packaged by the distributions. If you're curious about LLVM OpenMP, there's this article focusing on that matter - http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20488
                  How frequently is the OpenMP branch rebased no top of LLVM TOT? I would actually be interested in seeing new benchmarks, which include John the Ripper.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by samdraz View Post
                    Under i7-3630qm for scimark

                    LLVM-3.5
                    Code:
                    **                                                              **
                    ** SciMark2 Numeric Benchmark, see http://math.nist.gov/scimark **
                    ** for details. (Results can be submitted to [email protected])     **
                    **                                                              **
                    Using       2.00 seconds min time per kenel.
                    Composite Score:         1898.71
                    FFT             Mflops:  1237.14    (N=1024)
                    SOR             Mflops:  1573.29    (100 x 100)
                    MonteCarlo:     Mflops:   500.75
                    Sparse matmult  Mflops:  2132.57    (N=1000, nz=5000)
                    LU              Mflops:  4049.82    (M=100, N=100)
                    GCC-4.9.1
                    Code:
                    **                                                              **
                    ** SciMark2 Numeric Benchmark, see http://math.nist.gov/scimark **
                    ** for details. (Results can be submitted to [email protected])     **
                    **                                                              **
                    Using       2.00 seconds min time per kenel.
                    Composite Score:         1898.71
                    FFT             Mflops:  1237.14    (N=1024)
                    SOR             Mflops:  1573.29    (100 x 100)
                    MonteCarlo:     Mflops:   500.75
                    Sparse matmult  Mflops:  2132.57    (N=1000, nz=5000)
                    LU              Mflops:  4049.82    (M=100, N=100)
                    Uhm, did you accidentally post the same table twice? It seems unlikely that they'd be identical to two decimals.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X