I'm trying to do a bit of benchmarking to see if amd libm/acml will help me.
I got an idea that instead of building all of numpy/scipy and all of my custom
modules against these libraries, I could simply use:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to do a bit of benchmarking to see if amd libm/acml will help me.
I got an idea that instead of building all of numpy/scipy and all of my custom
modules against these libraries, I could simply use:
David Cournapeau wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to do a bit of benchmarking to see if amd libm/acml will help me.
I got an idea that instead of building all of numpy/scipy and all of my
custom modules against these libraries, I could
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote:
David Cournapeau wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to do a bit of benchmarking to see if amd libm/acml will help me.
I got an idea that instead of building all of
David Cournapeau wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote:
David Cournapeau wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to do a bit of benchmarking to see if amd libm/acml will help
me.
I got an idea that
David Cournapeau wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote:
David Cournapeau wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to do a bit of benchmarking to see if amd libm/acml will help
me.
I got an idea that
On 11/07/2012 03:30 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
David Cournapeau wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote:
David Cournapeau wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to do a bit of benchmarking to see if amd
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Warren Weckesser
warren.weckes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Phillip Feldman
phillip.m.feld...@gmail.com wrote:
numpy.unique behaves as I would expect for small inputs like the
following:
In [12]: x= [0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 2, 0, 1, 2, 3]
In
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:24 AM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Warren Weckesser
warren.weckes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Phillip Feldman
phillip.m.feld...@gmail.com wrote:
numpy.unique behaves as I would expect for small inputs
Would you expect numexpr without MKL to give a significant boost?
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Warren Weckesser warren.weckes...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Phillip Feldman
phillip.m.feld...@gmail.com wrote:
numpy.unique behaves as I would expect for small inputs like the
following:
In [12]: x= [0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 2, 0, 1, 2, 3]
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote:
Would you expect numexpr without MKL to give a significant boost?
It can, depending on the use case:
-- It can remove a lot of uneccessary temporary creation.
-- IIUC, it works on blocks of data at a time, and thus can
12 matches
Mail list logo