Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> writes: > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Richard Mills <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Barry Smith <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>> > These results seem reasonable to me. >>> > >>> > What makes you think that KNL should be doing better than it does in >>> comparison to Haswell? >>> > >>> > The entire reason for the existence of KNL is that it is a way for >>> > Intel to be able to "compete" with Nvidia GPUs for numerics and >>> > data processing, for example in the financial industry. By >>> > "compete" I mean convince gullible purchasing agents for large >>> > companies to purchase Intel KNL systems instead of Nvidia GPU >>> > systems. There is nothing in the hardware specifications of KNL >>> > that would indicate that it should work better on this type of >>> > problem than Haswell, in fact the specifications indicate that the >>> > Haskell should perform better >>> >>> Boom! Time to rewrite PETSc in Haskell! >>> >> >> Yeah, forget this debate about using C++! >> > > I think what Jed means is Time to write a Haskell program to Write PETSc.
Free your points and your mind will follow. https://wiki.haskell.org/Pointfree
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
