On Tuesday 03 March 2009 14:40:45 Cactus wrote: > On Mar 3, 2:07 pm, Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Here are figures for a 2.66 GHz Xeon (Core 2) under linux: > > > > ***** MPIRbench version 0.1 ***** > > Using default CFLAGS = "-O2 -fomit-frame-pointer > > -I/home/wbhart/mpir-core2/" Using default CC = "gcc" > > Using default LIBS = "-static -L/home/wbhart/mpir-core2/.libs/ -lmpir" > > Using compilation command: gcc -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer > > -I/home/wbhart/mpir-core2/ foo.c -o foo -static > > -L/home/wbhart/mpir-core2/.libs/ -lmpir > > You may want to override CC, CFLAGS, and LIBS > > Using MPIR version: 0.9.0 > > Compiling benchmarks > > Running benchmarks > > Category base > > Program multiply > > multiply 128 128 > > MPIRbench.base.multiply.128,128 result: 36290755 > > multiply 512 512 > > MPIRbench.base.multiply.512,512 result: 6974234 > > multiply 8192 8192 > > MPIRbench.base.multiply.8192,8192 result: 64000 > > multiply 131072 131072 > > MPIRbench.base.multiply.131072,131072 result: 928 > > multiply 2097152 2097152 > > MPIRbench.base.multiply.2097152,2097152 result: 36.4 > > MPIRbench.base.multiply result: 55927 > > Program divide > > divide 8192 32 > > MPIRbench.base.divide.8192,32 result: 603601 > > divide 8192 64 > > MPIRbench.base.divide.8192,64 result: 620812 > > divide 8192 128 > > MPIRbench.base.divide.8192,128 result: 336842 > > divide 8192 4096 > > MPIRbench.base.divide.8192,4096 result: 109596 > > divide 8192 8064 > > MPIRbench.base.divide.8192,8064 result: 1404355 > > divide 131072 8192 > > MPIRbench.base.divide.131072,8192 result: 2292 > > divide 131072 65536 > > MPIRbench.base.divide.131072,65536 result: 1212 > > divide 8388608 4194304 > > MPIRbench.base.divide.8388608,4194304 result: 3.34 > > MPIRbench.base.divide result: 25526 > > MPIRbench.base result: 37784 > > Category app > > Program rsa > > rsa 512 > > MPIRbench.app.rsa.512 result: 15277 > > rsa 1024 > > MPIRbench.app.rsa.1024 result: 3134 > > rsa 2048 > > MPIRbench.app.rsa.2048 result: 476 > > MPIRbench.app.rsa result: 2835.2 > > MPIRbench.app result: 2835.2 > > MPIRbench result: 10350 > > > > Bill. > > > > 2009/3/3 Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com>: > > > As the Sage project is currently investing a lot into Windows porting, > > > I asked on the sage-devel list if anyone has a suitable Core 2 machine > > > with Windows. > > > > > > Bill. > > > > > > 2009/3/3 Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com>: > > >> I should add that I don't have access to Windows on Core 2 anywhere. > > >> In fact I do not know anyone who has this. > > >> > > >> Bill. > > >> > > >> 2009/3/3 Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com>: > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > >>> I finished some work I was doing on my other project FLINT 5 days > > >>> early!! So I will spend a little time on mpir again. I'll work up > > >>> some timings for you on a core 2. > > >>> > > >>> Bill. > > >>> > > >>> 2009/3/3 Cactus <rieman...@googlemail.com>: > > >>>> On Mar 3, 12:42 pm, Jeff Gilchrist <jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Cactus <rieman...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > >>>>> > I have added batch files in the vc9.build directory - to_gmp.bat > > >>>>> > and to_mpir.bat - for name conversion. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Great, thanks, it seems to work well for the build.vc9 directory. > > >>>>> When you eventually convert your support for gmp-ecm and others to > > >>>>> MPIR, you will notice that it looks for "gmp.h" in the root of the > > >>>>> gmp/ directory so the batch file to convert from mpir to gmp misses > > >>>>> changing the root mpir.h to gmp.h. > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks, I'll fix that. > > >>>> > > >>>>> > I have also added the new assembler code. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I will be testing it soon. > > >>>> > > >>>> I am confident in the AMD64 stuff. But I am NOT yet confident in > > >>>> the performance of the Core2 code. > > >>>> > > >>>> I need x86_64 results for the Core2 code on both Windows and > > >>>> Linux/gcc/ gas to know where I am with this architecture in > > >>>> performance terms. > > >>>> > > >>>> Brian > > >>>> - Show quoted text - > > >>> > > >>> - Show quoted text - > > Thanks Bill, this is just what I needed to understand whether the > WIndows Core2 stuff is ok - and sadly it isn't :-( > > Scaling up my 2.13 Ghz Core2 result for the overall benchmark to 2.66 > Ghz gives 9150 - 13% slower. But more importantly scaling my multiply > figure to 2.66 GHz gives 50251 - 11% slower. Since my K8 multiply > figues are essentially the same as the Linux figures, it seems that > the code has not moved from the K8 to the Core2 unscathed. This is a > pain since the chaanges are very minor and shouls have moved over > without too much trouble. > > All very frustrating, I'm afraid. Jason gave figures earleir for the > cycle time of the assembler code for each routine. It would help me to > identify problems if you or another kind soul could duplicaate these > figures for Core2. > > Brian > > There are at least three core2 cpu's , model 6 family 15,22,29 , I assmume they all are just as architecturally as effiecient as each other . I know in Agner fogs manuals he does do two listings for core2 (65nm,45nm) , but I have not looked at them.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mpir-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to mpir-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mpir-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
