Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 08:34:40 -0500 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org>, Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter Message-ID: <20030105133439.GA55543@papagena.rockefeller.edu> In-Reply-To: <3E18073C.68182FE4@mindspring.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030104201251.029387d0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20030104112015.026a5530@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20030104201251.029387d0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20030104202908.03c3b100@localhost> <20030105073804.GA72674@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20030105074923.GA4956@papagena.rockefeller.edu> <3E18073C.68182FE4@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert said on Jan 5, 2003 at 02:21:48: > Rahul Siddharthan wrote: > > According to the benchmarks I cited earlier, > > http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/intel_comp/intel_gcc_bench2.html > > (look at the SciMark benchmark) > > gcc actually beats intel on the sparse matrix multiply on the > > Pentium IV (which generally emerges as Intel's strong platform) and > > runs it pretty close on LU decomposition. > > That's about the only place that g++ beat Intel C++; almost all > other cases, the Intel averages 20% faster, and that number goes > up to 100% faster for some benchmarks on the P4. The point is, sparse matrix operations and LU decomposition are exactly the cases Brett is talking about. > I guess people should read the referenced page, instead of trusting > summaries in mailing list postings. ;^). I guess people should read my posts properly and do their research R To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030105133439.GA55543>