> From: David Abrahams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [boost] Re: [uBlas] Any Performance Resulst Data with uBlas? > > > "Patrick Kowalzick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hi Matthew, > > > > I like these statistics. Nice graphs. > > > > Did you test the block_prod compared to normal prod as well ? This > > would be interessting compared to ATLAS as well.
An early version of block prod is there in my pdf, it is the one in the centre at the 1000 point, on the right. The BTL/opencascade link shows Atlas, but the current version of atlas performs quite a bit better. The uBLAS performance may be a little dated as the guys have done lots of work. Especially w.r.t. SSE/SSE2/vectorisation benefits. Atlas wrapping has been improved AFAIK, as ATLAS has since the results on the BTL page. Also the Intel Math Kernel Library results I had were called from a uBLAS matrix, calling DGEMM directly, so it still benefits, I feel, from nicety of uBLAS. > It's very hard to read, IMO. It's not clear what the lines > are referring to and some of them look too similar to be > distinguished. For sure. That is nearly the point for some though. GCC and VC benefit a little from the assign syntax, not not a huge amount as the lines are close together and are hard to distinguish. It is interesting to note the great differences you can get with Intel C++ depending on your optimization settings, which I find a battle to get right. But yeah, the graph aint pretty and it isn't too meaningful without more context. Matt. > >> > Now, is there any performance result data about uBlas ? > >> > > >> This is one of the better sources of results... > >> > >> http://www.opencascade.org/upload/87/index.html > >> > >> There is a small chart I did a while back at > >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Boost-Users/files/ > >> Called uBLA performance. > >> _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
