By: Klimax (danklima.delete@this.gmail.com), July 11, 2013 11:55 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
none (none.delete@this.none.com) on July 11, 2013 5:12 am wrote:
> Wilco (Wilco.Dijkstra.delete@this.ntlworld.com) on July 11, 2013 5:03 am wrote:
> [...]
> > Which benchmark is affected by denormals? I thought pretty much any modern
> > CPU nowadays deals with denormals in hardware with minimal penalty...
>
> That's an Intel claim, so I can't say. I have no reason not to believe it.
>
> [...]
> > Yes, GCC can still generate some inefficient code at times, especially the array accesses look
> > bad... The Intel version is vectorized, which means the ARM version will be about twice as
> > fast again when built with Neon. So yes, setting compiler options etc right matters...
>
> The x86 loop I showed is scalar. There's a vectored one in Geekbench, for x86 only, but I'm not
> sure it's ever run (and if it is, then Saltwell stinks even more than what Geekbench shows).
>
Do you know what type does it use? (fp or dp)
(It's hard to distinguish each test in capture)
> Wilco (Wilco.Dijkstra.delete@this.ntlworld.com) on July 11, 2013 5:03 am wrote:
> [...]
> > Which benchmark is affected by denormals? I thought pretty much any modern
> > CPU nowadays deals with denormals in hardware with minimal penalty...
>
> That's an Intel claim, so I can't say. I have no reason not to believe it.
>
> [...]
> > Yes, GCC can still generate some inefficient code at times, especially the array accesses look
> > bad... The Intel version is vectorized, which means the ARM version will be about twice as
> > fast again when built with Neon. So yes, setting compiler options etc right matters...
>
> The x86 loop I showed is scalar. There's a vectored one in Geekbench, for x86 only, but I'm not
> sure it's ever run (and if it is, then Saltwell stinks even more than what Geekbench shows).
>
Do you know what type does it use? (fp or dp)
(It's hard to distinguish each test in capture)