I understand that a Dot product might give unbelivable result, because Intel will focus on SIMD, by replacing 4 multiplication by 1 MULPS.

If you want some code to test the compiler, I recommend sqlite(http://www.sqlite.org/), Now sponsored by Mozilla, Adobe, Symbian and Bloomberg, this database system should be somewhat optimized, and if Intel compiler can gives a 30% performance gain most application should benefit from this.

Well, in short, if you are using MS visual c++ 2005, Intel compiler is directly compatible as a plug in. Just install it (free trial) , open you project, Click the "user intel c++" button, build and benchmark.

my two cent is, "why don't give it a try"

Regards

JP.



Eric Iverson wrote:
For Windows we build binaries with the C++ compler provided by MS Visual
Studio 2005 with max speed optimized.

Comparisons like this can be tricky and sometimes misleading. If you
posted complete code here (for example your dot product) there is some
chance people would take a look at it under various compilers (including the
new intel compiler). Frequently in the past we've gotten excited about some
new compiler only to find that on the whole the difference isn't
really worth the effort.

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Jean-Philippe Doiron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

I'm sorry, same code compiled with visual c++ with all optimization
properties set.

regards

JP.


Raul Miller wrote:

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Jean-Philippe Doiron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:


job compiling code. (avr 30% faster execution code)


...


dot product on 100 00 element, runs 4700x faster


Faster than what?



 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to