Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: GCC 4.5 vs. 4.6 On AMD's FX-4100 Bulldozer

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,628

    Default GCC 4.5 vs. 4.6 On AMD's FX-4100 Bulldozer

    Phoronix: GCC 4.5 vs. 4.6 On AMD's FX-4100 Bulldozer

    In continuing from yesterday's AMD FX-4100 "Bulldozer" Linux benchmarks, here are more Ubuntu test results from this system comparing the stock GCC 4.5.2 and GCC 4.6.1 compilers for the new Bulldozer platform.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=16563

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    399

    Default

    Is the table for the system specification really supposed to be far outside of the main page? It's been like that for months, so I assume so. I'm using Firefox 7.0.1, so it's not like it's an uncommon browser.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Azpegath View Post
    Is the table for the system specification really supposed to be far outside of the main page? It's been like that for months, so I assume so. I'm using Firefox 7.0.1, so it's not like it's an uncommon browser.
    I've been working on an appropriate fix and had one working for some browsers but not others, still working on it.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    20

    Angry another incomplete article! why?!

    Michael, I personally don't really like that you are pumping out articles with bits and pieces of information instead of doing all benchmarks and writing proper performance analysis in a single, complete review?! I would appreciate the latter much more and I've heard similar comments from others as well.

    To be more specific, in this case without benchmarks with proper compiler tuning for Barcelona architecture (-march=bdvar1 and others), IMO this article is just incomplete and kindof sucks.

    You should really consider starting a blog section and have clear separation between these blog-like posts and proper reviews. Alternatively, if you want to still keep on pumping out partial reviews without calling them blog posts you could at least call them "pre-review" or something similar.

    Cheers,
    Sz.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    519

    Default

    Summing up the most notable changes on that configuration:
    GCC 4.6 yields a 25% improvement in the GraphicsMagick Sharpen test, and a 50% improvement in the GCrypt Library Camelia-256 ECB Cipher test.
    GCC 4.5 has a 14% advantage in the N-Queens test though.

    That's basically it.
    If you don't know what that means for your usage cases, well... Welcome to the club.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pszilard View Post
    Michael, I personally don't really like that you are pumping out articles with bits and pieces of information instead of doing all benchmarks and writing proper performance analysis in a single, complete review?! I would appreciate the latter much more and I've heard similar comments from others as well.

    To be more specific, in this case without benchmarks with proper compiler tuning for Barcelona architecture (-march=bdvar1 and others), IMO this article is just incomplete and kindof sucks.

    You should really consider starting a blog section and have clear separation between these blog-like posts and proper reviews. Alternatively, if you want to still keep on pumping out partial reviews without calling them blog posts you could at least call them "pre-review" or something similar.

    Cheers,
    Sz.
    why do you not set "pre-review" in your mind for phoronix .com ?

    on phoronix.com i mostly read only raw results most of the time thereis no deep analysis about why is something slow and why is something fast and what is the best way to go...

    Michael Larabel isn't your computer decision consultant brain prosthesis.

    if you want a brain prosthesis I'm sure Michael can help you if you pay the bill.

    bill thats a good idea why not pay him a co-worker to do proper reviews ?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    why do you not set "pre-review" in your mind for phoronix .com ?

    on phoronix.com i mostly read only raw results most of the time thereis no deep analysis about why is something slow and why is something fast and what is the best way to go...

    Michael Larabel isn't your computer decision consultant brain prosthesis.

    if you want a brain prosthesis I'm sure Michael can help you if you pay the bill.

    bill thats a good idea why not pay him a co-worker to do proper reviews ?
    You've obviously just jumped at defending Michael without actually thinking through what I said. I'm not going to do you a favor by continuing the smart-ass style discussion you started.

    I was not demanding any kind of deep analysis. Please re-read what I wrote and realize that I was criticizing the way bits and pieces of information are released over several articles. This obviously introduces redundancy (introduction, hardware specs, etc. repeated in multiple articles) and fragmentation of the topic.

    I can only guess about the reasons why he doesn't hold off with an article for a day or two (or even a week) and publish at once a complete set of benchmarks.


    And btw I'm lucky enough that I have access to tons of computer hardware and expertise in most of the decisions on choosing, some even before the official release, so your idiotic comments don't even have much relevance...

    Cheers,
    Sz

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •