ajensen (@.) on 8/23/10 wrote:
---------------------------
>Anon (no@thanks.com) on 8/22/10 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>It does however look to me like Intel is playing the same game people seem incensed
>>at NVidia for doing here, unless I have missed something their base C implementation
>>is running single threaded on a single core, versus 4/8 SMD units for their OpenCL version..
>
>On page 14 they show the most interesting scenarios including handtuned C with
>MT and SSE, which is of course for this platform, shown to be faster than OpenCL.
>They don't show handtuned single thread C with SSE, which might be of some interest
>in academia, but in practice no one spends that much time for an implementation that will be slow vs. MT.
>
>Also they don't show "naive-C-with-MT", but that is really an oxymoron.

Sorry, I should have been clearer, that was the case I was looking for, naive-C-with-MT and optimised-C-with-MT-noSSE, if that makes sense.
These cases are not that hard, and are probably the most common current codes out there for compute heavy jobs right now, which is why I think they are interesting.

>So IMO they don't claim OpenCL to be the silver bullet for execution speed, but
>close enough to best implementation. And that much more portable and fast to write.
>In time I'm sure compilers will beat humans anyway for execution speed. It, is just
>a mater of complexity. When was the last time humans could beat computers for CPU layout?

Yes, its all a very interesting position, and I cannot wait to get my hands on it.