Replies to post #7860 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[chipguy]

I think Mageek was joking there, but the 34% improvement seems a lot more realistic, so
Opteron may beat Madison by nice margin in SpecINT and come sufficiently close in SpecFP.

Hold on now. You seem to be taking an unproven relative performance gain claim for a compiler
that AFAIK has no previous official SPEC submissions and seem to making assumptions based
as if you are taking the Intel compilers as a starting point. For all we know it might need to improve
50% to match the existing Opteron SPECfp score that use the Intel compiler.

I would be a heck of lot more impressed by the "Portland group" if it didn't hide behind relative
performance gains with previous versions of its own compiler and threw out some real scores.

[kpf]

yb re: ... I post too much

Naah. Keep it up, man.

About the compiler-performance. Here is where Mike took it from.

http://www.pgroup.com/images/pg50vpg41.jpg

Now, kauftAMD ( http://www.wallstreet-online.de/ws/community/board/threadpages.php?fid=0&tid=629588&page=-1&.... )
was kind enough to educate me what it is all about:
Obviously the announcement of acml and preannouncement of SGI 5.0 not coincidentially came up, but correlate in many ways:
Both are in some way the results of the very same efforts.
The impressive performance-gains come from the combination of both using acml-code and the compiler-development.

I begin to get sort of an idea now Opterons reportedly hardly warmed the coolers up to now and why AMD was so reluctant in giving actual thermal figures: The CPUs seem to have been sort of underutilized ;-)

K.