You'll find that all the very large stuff will be markedly worse after tuning. One of the reasons we are replacing the FFT is that at present the only people that can tune it are us, and it takes hours!
But thanks again for the comparisons. Bill. 2010/1/10 Gianrico Fini <gianrico.f...@gmail.com>: > 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. > > > >
-- 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.
