I see the comparison is more balanced on you machine. The impressive
unbalance is in the numbers of the Mersenne and Fermat test.
By the way, I tested it all again with gcc-4.4 and with the result
from (cd tune;make tune) inserted in gmp-mparam.h... for all the three
libraries.
Results for GMP-5.0.0 did not change (more or less). Results for
GMP-4.3.2 have improved a little. MPIR-1.3.0-rc4... unfortunately
changed... see below:
--GMP-4.3.2--
$ mpir_bench_two/bench_two_gmp
Running MPIR benchmark
GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 9 Stepping 5
Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1400MHz
Speed: 1.40 GHz (reported)
Category base
Program multiply (weight 1.00)
128 0 => 8679016
512 0 => 1474201
8192 0 => 15863
131072 0 => 276
2097152 0 => 11.8
128 0 => 7055718
512 0 => 942638
8192 0 => 10977
131072 0 => 195
2097152 0 => 8.05
15000 0 => 5182
20000 0 => 3953
30000 0 => 2372
16777216 0 => 27.5
16777216 0 => 1.46 => 3505, 2504
Program divide (weight 1.00)
8192 0 => 210230
8192 0 => 169191
8192 0 => 51893
8192 0 => 14614
131072 0 => 202
8388608 0 => 0.677
8192 0 => 223045
16777216 0 => 0.426 => 2080, 1486
Program gcd (weight 0.50)
128 0 => 405431
512 0 => 62607
8192 0 => 1151
131072 0 => 14.5
1048576 0 => 0.701 => 785, 560
Program gcdext (weight 0.50)
128 0 => 269312
512 0 => 40694
8192 0 => 585
131072 0 => 8.23
1048576 0 => 0.436 => 470, 336
Program root (weight 0.30)
128 0 => 252938
512 0 => 171558
8192 0 => 24178
131072 0 => 305
1048576 0 => 16.1 => 5525, 3946
Program fac_ui (weight 0.20)
128 0 => 409654
1512 0 => 5605
15000 0 => 98.7
1000010 0 => 0.283
2123456 0 => 0.106 => 92.6, 66.2 => 1546, 1104
Category app
Program rsa (weight 1.00)
512 => 2478
1024 => 413
2048 => 61.6 => 398, 284
Program pi (weight 1.00)
10000 => 104
100000 => 3.90
1000000 => 0.218 => 4.46, 3.18
Program bpsw (weight 1.00)
1024 => 74.5
4096 => 2.34
16384 => 0.0706 => 2.31, 1.65
Program wagstaff (weight 1.00)
1024 => 327
4096 => 10.9
16384 => 0.342 => 10.7, 7.62
Program mersenne (weight 1.00)
3217 => 4.30
4253 => 2.15
4423 => 1.94
9689 => 0.249
11213 => 0.182 => 0.959,0.685
Program fermat (weight 1.00)
8 => 1657
10 => 83.6
12 => 2.52 => 70.4, 50.3 => 12.0, 8.56 =>
136, 97.2
--MPIR-1.3.0-rc4--
$ mpir_bench_two/bench_two
Running MPIR benchmark
GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 9 Stepping 5
Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1400MHz
Speed: 1.40 GHz (reported)
Category base
Program multiply (weight 1.00)
128 0 => 7648002
512 0 => 810865
8192 0 => 12089
131072 0 => 285
2097152 0 => 10.9
128 0 => 7683516
512 0 => 813577
8192 0 => 9003
131072 0 => 200
2097152 0 => 7.52
15000 0 => 4441
20000 0 => 3452
30000 0 => 2045
16777216 0 => 23.2
16777216 0 => 1.44 => 3073, 2195
Program divide (weight 1.00)
8192 0 => 217532
8192 0 => 85041
8192 0 => 54990
8192 0 => 14711
131072 0 => 181
8388608 0 => 0.645
8192 0 => 1111505
16777216 0 => 0.384 => 2286, 1633
Program gcd (weight 0.50)
128 0 => 331517
512 0 => 44950
8192 0 => 1114
131072 0 => 12.6
1048576 0 => 0.649 => 671, 479
Program gcdext (weight 0.50)
128 0 => 206896
512 0 => 34492
8192 0 => 490
131072 0 => 7.41
1048576 0 => 0.414 => 404, 288
Program root (weight 0.30)
128 0 => 320216
512 0 => 130654
8192 0 => 10332
131072 0 => 94.8
1048576 0 => 6.29 => 3035, 2168
Program fac_ui (weight 0.20)
128 0 => 326635
1512 0 => 4571
mul_fft.c:2346: GNU MP assertion failed: cc == 0
15000 0 => 119Aborted
...Yes, it started with some slightly better result (I see that tuning
is useful for multiplication), then aborted. Changing tuned values
give instability? Is it a problem with the new compiler? I do not
know...
GMP5 seems more stable and supporting my platform, I'll start using
it.
Thanks for all the informations and keep up the nice work.
Gian.
On 10 Gen, 18:20, Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Sure, it's interesting to compare.
>
> On my 64 bit machine (Selmer):
>
> K10-2:
>
> Squaring: MPIR 1.3.0 GMP 5.0.0
> ======= ======== ========
> 128 x 128 : 56715728 55997671
> 512 x 512 : 11350749 13487276
> 8192 x 8192 : 149696 151687
> 131072 x 131072 : 2512 2640
> 2097152 x 2097152 : 94.2 81.6
>
> Multiplication:
> ==========
> 128 x 128 : 57689204 56006766
> 512 x 512 : 11350738 10179077
> 8192 x 8192 : 104945 101532
> 131072 x 131072 : 1856 1848
> 2097152 x 2097152 : 65.7 54.8
>
> Unbalanced:
> ==========
> 15000 x 10000 : 51197 51819
> 20000 x 10000 : 40086 38484
> 30000 x 10000 : 23539 24674
> 16777216 x 512 : 392 456
> 16777216 x 262144 : 10.7 12.9
>
> Division :
> =========
> 8192 / 32 : 1420564 1318523
> 8192 / 64 : 1155167 1334473
> 8192 / 128 : 624077 805567
> 8192 / 4096 : 171758 249209
> 8192 / 8064 : 7084081 8455199
> 131072 / 65536 : 1992 2588
> 8388608 / 4194304 : 5.86 11.5
> 16777216 / 262144 : 4.03 6.94
>
> GCD :
> ====
> 128 x 128 : 1820216 1971827
> 512 x 512 : 168623 221378
> 8192 x 8192 : 5560 6321
> 131072 x 131072 : 115 121
> 1048576 x 1048576 : 5.93 6.27
>
> XGCD :
> =====
> 128 x 128 : 682582 884318
> 512 x 512 : 122152 154781
> 8192 x 8192 : 3826 4339
> 131072 x 131072 : 73.3 76.1
> 1048576 x 1048576 : 3.89 4.22
>
> Root:
> ====
> 128 x 5 : 996836 557837
> 512 x 3 : 358609 446327
> 8192 x 11 : 93080 141224
> 131072 x 3 : 1016 3441
> 1048576 x 3 : 55.8 166
>
> Fac_ui:
> =====
> 128 : 1385073 1467919
> 1512 : 46727 46355
> 10000 : 1046 1046
> 1000010 : 3.51 2.23
> 2123456 : 1.27 0.796
>
> RSA :
> ====
> 512 : 20478 21112
> 1024 : 4488 4065
> 2048 : 762 736
>
> Pi :
> ===
> 10000 : 398 389
> 100000 : 23.0 23.2
> 1000000 : 1.36 1.32
>
> BPSW:
> =====
> 1024 : 935 1483
> 4096 : 26.2 31.2
> 16384 : 0.714 0.871
>
> Wagstaff:
> ======
> 1024 : 2307 2706
> 4096 : 89.6 96.0
> 16384 : 2.86 2.96
>
> Mersenne:
> =======
> 3217 : 138 43.6
> 4253 : 67.6 21.8
> 4423 : 59.7 20.1
> 9689 : 8.27 2.67
> 11213 : 5.77 1.85
>
> Fermat:
> =====
> 8 : 87725 6791
> 10 : 3241 635
> 12 : 80.3 25.0
>
> Overall:
> =======
> 1364 1186
>
> So a mixed bag really. I'm less impressed with the unbalanced
> multiplication than I was 10 minutes ago. :-(
>
> Clearly their division code has improved and our cube root code still
> sucks and our gcd and xgcd still needs optimising (that one file I
> keep carrying on about). Nothing else is jumping out at me.
>
> Bill.
>
> 2010/1/10 Gianrico Fini <gianrico.f...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Sorry, I don't have a 64-bit processor... I'm working on somehow old
> > hardware, usually.
>
> > Anyway I think there is also another problem in my measure, I did not
> > "tune".
> > I was trying an update of the compiler to gcc-4.4...
> > Then I'll recompile the three libraries, retune them, recompile again,
> > and test.
> > If you are interested, I'll send the new result here again.
>
> > On 10 Gen, 17:09, Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> Thanks very much for taking the time to run those!!
>
> >> We suffer a little here because of suboptimal assembly code we provide
> >> for your (32 bit?) Pentium M processor, as can be seen from the
> >> multiply scores for small sizes (which are dominated by the assembly
> >> performance).
>
> >> MPIR 1.3:
>
> >> 8192 0 => 8864
>
> >> GMP 5.0:
>
> >> 8192 0 => 11419
>
> >> Even if we adjust for that, however, the GMP unbalanced multiply
> >> scores are still exceptional:
>
> >> MPIR 1.3:
>
> >> 15000 0 => 4503
> >> 20000 0 => 3481
> >> 30000 0 => 2069
>
> >> GMP 5.0:
>
> >> 15000 0 => 5482 (4254 adj.)
> >> 20000 0 => 4619 (3584 adj.)
> >> 30000 0 => 2929 (2272 adj.)
>
> >> Assuming my adjustment for the assembly bias is valid (questionable),
> >> it is clear they are getting up to 10% improvement over us with their
> >> higher unbalanced Toom functions. Pretty good work on their part!!
>
> >> I'd be curious to compare on a 64 bit machine where there should be
> >> little to no assembly bias. It looks to me that perhaps we still come
> >> out around the same on the pi test.
>
> >> Bill.
>
> >> 2010/1/10 Gianrico Fini <gianrico.f...@gmail.com>:
>
> >> > I tried, on my laptop. I couldn't work with their own test, so I used the
> >> > one I've found on MPIR main page. I paste here the result (I'm running
> >> > Gentoo, gcc-4.3.4).
>
> >> > --GMP-4.3.2--
> >> > $ mpir_bench_two/bench_two_gmp
>
> >> > Running MPIR benchmark
> >> > GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 9 Stepping 5
> >> > Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1400MHz
> >> > Speed: 1.40 GHz (reported)
> >> > Category base
> >> > Program multiply (weight 1.00)
> >> > 128 0 => 7873205
> >> > 512 0 => 1412472
> >> > 8192 0 => 15535
> >> > 131072 0 => 252
> >> > 2097152 0 => 10.9
> >> > 128 0 => 7014812
> >> > 512 0 => 895116
> >> > 8192 0 => 10290
> >> > 131072 0 => 170
> >> > 2097152 0 => 7.41
> >> > 15000 0 => 4916
> >> > 20000 0 => 3796
> >> > 30000 0 => 2333
> >> > 16777216 0 => 27.4
> >> > 16777216 0 => 1.37 => 3313, 2366
> >> > Program divide (weight 1.00)
> >> > 8192 0 => 208271
> >> > 8192 0 => 163357
> >> > 8192 0 => 46225
> >> > 8192 0 => 13306
> >> > 131072 0 => 195
> >> > 8388608 0 => 0.636
> >> > 8192 0 => 219948
> >> > 16777216 0 => 0.375 => 1955, 1397
> >> > Program gcd (weight 0.50)
> >> > 128 0 => 379235
> >> > 512 0 => 63447
> >> > 8192 0 => 1155
> >> > 131072 0 => 13.0
> >> > 1048576 0 => 0.667 => 752, 537
> >> > Program gcdext (weight 0.50)
> >> > 128 0 => 266774
> >> > 512 0 => 39311
> >> > 8192 0 => 576
> >> > 131072 0 => 7.67
> >> > 1048576 0 => 0.429 => 457, 326
> >> > Program root (weight 0.30)
> >> > 128 0 => 254520
> >> > 512 0 => 174983
> >> > 8192 0 => 23189
> >> > 131072 0 => 285
> >> > 1048576 0 => 15.1 => 5365, 3832
> >> > Program fac_ui (weight 0.20)
> >> > 128 0 => 392143
> >> > 1512 0 => 5420
> >> > 15000 0 => 100
> >> > 1000010 0 => 0.272
> >> > 2123456 0 => 0.0989 => 89.4, 63.9 => 1473, 1052
> >> > Category app
> >> > Program rsa (weight 1.00)
> >> > 512 => 2318
> >> > 1024 => 397
> >> > 2048 => 60.0 => 381, 272
> >> > Program pi (weight 1.00)
> >> > 10000 => 89.4
> >> > 100000 => 3.69
> >> > 1000000 => 0.202 => 4.05, 2.90
> >> > Program bpsw (weight 1.00)
> >> > 1024 => 68.1
> >> > 4096 => 2.12
> >> > 16384 => 0.0661 => 2.12, 1.52
> >> > Program wagstaff (weight 1.00)
> >> > 1024 => 316
> >> > 4096 => 10.2
> >> > 16384 => 0.323 => 10.1, 7.23
> >> > Program mersenne (weight 1.00)
> >> > 3217 => 4.17
> >> > 4253 => 2.11
> >> > 4423 => 1.78
> >> > 9689 => 0.255
> >> > 11213 => 0.175 => 0.931,0.665
> >> > Program fermat (weight 1.00)
>
> ...
>
> leggi tutto
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"mpir-devel" group.
To post to this group, send email to mpir-de...@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.
