On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Richard Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Barry Smith <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > These results seem reasonable to me. >> > >> > What makes you think that KNL should be doing better than it does in >> comparison to Haswell? >> > >> > The entire reason for the existence of KNL is that it is a way for >> > Intel to be able to "compete" with Nvidia GPUs for numerics and >> > data processing, for example in the financial industry. By >> > "compete" I mean convince gullible purchasing agents for large >> > companies to purchase Intel KNL systems instead of Nvidia GPU >> > systems. There is nothing in the hardware specifications of KNL >> > that would indicate that it should work better on this type of >> > problem than Haswell, in fact the specifications indicate that the >> > Haskell should perform better >> >> Boom! Time to rewrite PETSc in Haskell! >> > > Yeah, forget this debate about using C++! > I think what Jed means is Time to write a Haskell program to Write PETSc. Matt -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener
