Replies to post #28897 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[wbmw]

Petz, Re: YOur Intel bias is so blatantly obvious you should both be ashamed of yourselves. "Small tight loops" as in Quicksort do NOT NEED lots of registers, so the extra registers will do no good.

Please keep the personal attacks to a minimum, Petz. Chipguy's and my main points about quicksorts are that the algorithms can be highly optimized by modern compilers, and are thus more likely to receive a benefit to extra registers. Tight loops does not imply fewer registers are needed, but it might imply that optimizations are low hanging fruits for developers.

Re: Like DB2, for instance? I guess that is why 64-bit DB2 on IBM EServer 325 clusters running 64-bit Linux has the highest TPC-H test results for both 100 GB and 300 GB data sizes. And those results are almost 9 months old and haven't been exceeded. 8-CPU Xeon results are less than half as high as 8x2 CPU Opteron.

Nice strawman, but the performance of Opteron is not on trial here. Most people already recognize that Opteron scales very well, and TPC-H also scales well, especially with clusters. What the comparison does not have is the percent difference in performance between 32-bit/32-bit, 64-bit/32-bit, and 64-bit/64-bit modes. Your example therefore doesn't advance this particular discussion at all.

[chipguy]

YOur Intel bias is so blatantly obvious you should both be ashamed of yourselves. "Small tight loops" as in Quicksort do NOT NEED lots of registers, so the extra registers will do no good.

Where did *I* say a single word about register usage
in qsort? Please spend less time on name calling and
more time on trying to follow a thread before you post.