For example, take a look at these results from SCIbench
(http://math.nist.gov/scimark2), generated on an quadruple-proc EV67
machine (running Tru64 Unix btw, not Linux):
Compaq C compiler, V6.4-014 CFLAGS = -arch ev67 -fast -O4
| Composite Score: 195.47
| FFT Mflops: 207.66 (N=1024)
| SOR Mflops: 235.00 (100 x 100)
| MonteCarlo: Mflops: 53.33
| Sparse matmult Mflops: 177.93 (N=1000, nz=5000)
| LU Mflops: 303.42 (M=100, N=100)
GNU C compiler, V3.2.1 CFLAGS = -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -ffast-math -mcpu=ev67 | Composite Score: 137.18 | FFT Mflops: 188.23 (N=1024) | SOR Mflops: 167.08 (100 x 100) | MonteCarlo: Mflops: 49.71 | Sparse matmult Mflops: 163.85 (N=1000, nz=5000) | LU Mflops: 117.03 (M=100, N=100)
I don't know -- really the only thing where the ccc code really shines is the LU factorization. Composite scores are only about 30% better for ccc. I think this is one of those discussion with sufficiently many vagaries to get a different opinion from almost every participant.
I like ccc; the back end is really some nifty engineering (GEM is involved on this, right?), but that is typical of Alpha things that started at DEC.
That was a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...
Cheers,
Phil Mendelsohn
--
"To misattribute a quote is unforgivable." -- Anonymous
