Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: 11-Way Intel Ivy Bridge Compiler Comparison

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,103

    Default 11-Way Intel Ivy Bridge Compiler Comparison

    Phoronix: 11-Way Intel Ivy Bridge Compiler Comparison

    From an Intel Core i7 3770K "Ivy Bridge" system here is an 11-way compiler comparison to look at the performance of these popular code compilers on the latest-generation Intel hardware. Among the compilers being compared on Intel's Ivy Bridge platform are multiple releases of GCC, LLVM/Clang, DragonEgg, PathScale EKOPath, and Open64.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17399

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    76

    Default

    Thanks for this article. Nice comparison and the summary was spot on and not biased towards LLVM, which is great to see.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Indeed nice article. Any chance of also testing the intel c/c++ compiler?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfred View Post
    Indeed nice article. Any chance of also testing the intel c/c++ compiler?
    If this happens, include some AMD CPUs in the testing for reference..

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfred View Post
    Indeed nice article. Any chance of also testing the intel c/c++ compiler?

    No, I don't have a license and I believe they have some publishing restrictions on it...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,103

    Default Throw in PCC?

    Throw in Portable C Compiler (PCC) ?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    No, I don't have a license and I believe they have some publishing restrictions on it...
    Ah, pity, but thanks for the answer. I keep hearing stories that supposedly the intel compiler is 20 to 30% faster than gcc.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfred View Post
    Ah, pity, but thanks for the answer. I keep hearing stories that supposedly the intel compiler is 20 to 30% faster than gcc.
    Only on Intel, remember.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    16

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfred View Post
    Indeed nice article. Any chance of also testing the intel c/c++ compiler?
    Intel C++ Compiler mostly is best optimized Compiler on planet in Intel platform, but it is proprietary and close source. GCC is on second place immediately, Only subordinate to Intel C++.
     
    Regarding Clang??? Crappy clang has always been stupid rubbish shit!!!
    Last edited by China_Guy; 05-30-2012 at 11:41 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by China_Guy View Post
    Intel C++ Compiler mostly is best optimized Compiler on planet in Intel platform, but it is proprietary and close source. GCC is on second place immediately, Only subordinate to Intel C++.
     
    Regarding Clang??? Crappy clang has always been stupid rubbish shit!!!
    Except that GCC has always been "stupid rubbish shit" -- and has _intentionally_ been that way due to RMS's paranoia -- except for the barely-relevant part where it produces faster binaries than irrelevant compilers almost nobody uses (Open64) or a compiler that's practically an infant in comparison (Clang/LLVM). Clang matches the performance it took GCC 25 years to achieve, not to mention the fact that it has an equivalent level of language conformance and features (again, from zero to that complete in a teeny tiny fraction of the time it took GCC), plus the so-freaking-awesome toolset support it enables that GCC goes out of its way to make impossible to write.

    In the few cases where binary performance in a few specialized micro-benchmarks actually matter, it's worth noting that GCC is still not even top dog, so it has the unpleasant distinction of being neither the faster compiler nor the more featureful, flexible, maintainable, extensible compiler. The only crown it can hold is "most popular compiler for UNIX systems." Yay.

    Without Clang, the world of Open Source compilers would be stuck forever with glorified Notepad apps (Vim, Emacs) and a practically tools-free development environment. With Clang, the FOSS scene actually has a chance to start playing catch-up to Visual Studio / VAX. There's a chance to have actually useful code completion (real-time, no need to regenerate ctags and wait 5 minutes for it to complete), to have powerful code refactoring (nobody but VS/VAX has this yet, which is why it's so important for FOSS to catch up), and most importantly to have a compiler that provides a valid test ground for new language extensions and features to propose to the relevant committees (GCC is a nightmare to extend, maintain, learn, or improve; only a small handful of people can deal with its horrific internals). This is of course why just about every company on the planet with an interest in C/C++ have gotten involved with Clang: it is a massive improvement on all fronts that _actually matter_, and the performance of compiled binaries non-issue can be improved as time goes on (and again, it has improved at a much MUCH faster rater than GCC has).

    But thanks anyway for your input as a non-developer fanboy. The world would such a worse place without your clueless rants and abuse of fonts.

Posting Permissions

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