Klimax (danklima.delete@this.gmail.com) on July 11, 2013 3:10 am wrote:
> Wilco (Wilco.Dijkstra.delete@this.ntlworld.com) on July 11, 2013 1:04 am wrote:

> > No - the story is about Intel's underhanded tactics of optimizing a closed source benchmark. The
> > source code is not available, so even upgrading to a newer GCC or changing the options isn't possible.
> > So how did Intel manage to replace GCC altogether? It seems likely they paid off AnTuTu.
> >
> > Wilco
> >
>
> No. It shows that Intel's optimization is still superior to others.

No it doesn't. There is no source code, and not even any data to show what compiler versions and options were used. There is nothing that can be drawn from this benchmark.

> (Closest one is VC not GCC/CLANG)

What is your evidence?

> One part of issue is, that nobody demonstrated that this particular optimization breaks upon
> small almost irrelevant change to code like it was done to Sunspider benchmark.
>
> (With such observed loop in disassembly it shouldn't be hard
> to replicate in C/C++ and do mods and observe ASM/binary...)

In either case, these results are still useless.