On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn <d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no> wrote: > On 02/05/2012 10:57 PM, mark florisson wrote: > > I don't really know how good the Intel and AMD CPU drivers are w.r.t. this > -- I have seen the Intel driver emit "vectorizing" and "could not > vectorize", but didn't explore the circumstances.
For our project, we've tried both Intel and AMD (previously ATI) backends. The AMD experience somewhat mirrors what this developer described (http://www.msoos.org/2012/01/amds-opencl-heaven-and-hell/), although not as bad in terms of silent failures (or maybe I just havent caught any!). Intel backend was great and clearly better in terms of performance, sometimes by about 20-30%. However, when ran on older AMD-based machine as opposed to Intel one, the resulting kernel simply segfaulted without any warning about an unsupported architecture (I think its because it didn't have SSE3 support). > > Dag Sverre > > _______________________________________________ > cython-devel mailing list > cython-devel@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel I know Intel is working with LLVM/Clang folks to introduce their vectorization additions, at least to some degree, and LLVM seems to be consistently improving in this regard (eg http://blog.llvm.org/2011/12/llvm-31-vector-changes.html). I suppose if Cython emitted vectorization-friendly numerical loops, then appropriate C/C++ compiler should take care of this automatically, if used. Intel C++ can already do certain stuff like that (see http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/a-guide-to-auto-vectorization-with-intel-c-compilers/), and GCC as well AFAIK. Dimitri. _______________________________________________ cython-devel mailing list cython-devel@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
