> On Nov 20, 2014, at 9:30 PM, Brandon Hurr <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Simon.
> 
>   It's been a while since I've looked but are there precise instructions on 
> how to implement your BTW?
> 

There is FAQ "10.5 Which BLAS is used and how can it be changed?" for the first 
part.
iomp is a bit involved, since you have to build it in the first place, but I'm 
working on making it part of the CRAN binaries in the near future.

Cheers,
Simon


> Brandon. 
> 
> On Thursday, November 20, 2014, Simon Urbanek <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Braun, Michael <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > I run R on a recent Mac Pro (Ivy Bridge architecture), and before that, on 
> > a 2010-version (Nehalem architecture).  For the last few years I have been 
> > installing R by compiling from source.  The reason is that I noticed in the 
> > etc/Makeconf file that the precompiled binary is compiled with the 
> > -mtune=core2 option.  I had thought that since my system uses a processor 
> > with a more recent architecture and instruction set, that I would be 
> > leaving performance on the table by using the binary.
> >
> > My self-compiled R has worked well for me, for the most part. But sometimes 
> > little things pop-up, like difficulty using R Studio, an occasional 
> > permissions problem related to the Intel BLAS, etc.  And there is a time 
> > investment in installing R this way.  So even though I want to exploit as 
> > much of the computing power on my desktop that I can, now I am questioning 
> > whether self-compiling R is worth the effort.
> >
> > My questions are these:
> >
> > 1.  Am I correct that the R binary for Mac is tuned to Core2 architecture?
> > 2.  In theory, should tuning the compiler for Sandy Bridge (SSE4.2, AVX 
> > instructions, etc) generate a faster R?
> 
> In theory, yes, but often the inverse is true (in particular for AVX).
> 
> 
> > 3.  Has anyone tested the theory in Item 2?
> > 4.  Is the reason for setting -mtune=core2 to support older machines?  If 
> > so, are enough people still using pre-Nehalem 64-bit Macs to justify this?
> 
> Only partially. In fact, the flags are there explicitly to increase the 
> tuning level - the default is even lower. Last time I checked there were no 
> significant benefits in compiling with more aggressive flags anyway. (If you 
> want to go there, Jan De Leeuw used to publish most aggressive flags 
> possible). You cannot relax the math ops compatibility which is the only 
> piece that typically yields gain, because you start getting wrong math op 
> results. You have to be very careful with benchmarking, because from 
> experience optimizations often yield speed ups in some areas, but also 
> introduce slowdown in other areas - it's not always a gain (one example on 
> the extreme end is AVX: when enabled some ops can even take twice as long, 
> believe it or not...) and even the gains are typically in single digit 
> percent range.
> 
> 
> > 5.  What would trigger a decision to start tuning the R binary for a more 
> > advanced processor?
> > 6.  What are some other implications of either self-compiling or using the 
> > precompiled binary that I might need to consider?
> >
> 
> When you compile from sources, you're entirely on your own and you have to 
> take care of all dependencies (libraries) and compilation yourself. Most Mac 
> users don't want to go there since they typically prefer to spend their time 
> elsewhere ;).
> 
> BTW: if you really care about speed, the real gains are with using parallel 
> BLAS, Intel OpenMP runtime and enabling built-in threading support in R.
> 
> Cheers,
> Simon
> 
> 
> > tl;dr:  My Mac Pro has a Ivy Bridge processor.  Is it worthwhile to compile 
> > R myself, instead of using the binary?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> > --------------------------
> > Michael Braun
> > Associate Professor of Marketing
> > Cox School of Business
> > Southern Methodist University
> > Dallas, TX 75275
> > [email protected]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > R-SIG-Mac mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mac
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> R-SIG-Mac mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mac

_______________________________________________
R-SIG-Mac mailing list
[email protected]
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mac

Reply via email to