search for: mflops

...d upon whilst > > tweaking the command-line options to llvm-gcc. Specifically, the -msse3 > > flag > > The -msse3 flag? Does the -msse2 flag have a similar effect? Yes: $ llvm-gcc -Wall -lm -O3 -msse2 *.c -o scimark2 $ ./scimark2 Composite Score: 525.99 FFT Mflops: 538.35 (N=1024) SOR Mflops: 472.29 (100 x 100) MonteCarlo: Mflops: 120.92 Sparse matmult Mflops: 585.14 (N=1000, nz=5000) LU Mflops: 913.27 (M=100, N=100) But -msse does not: $ llvm-gcc -Wall -lm -O3 -msse *.c -o scimark2 $ ./scimark2 Composite...

...e of floating point intensive code on the SciMark2 benchmark but it also degrades the performance of the int-intensive Monte Carlo part of the test: $ llvm-gcc -Wall -lm -O3 *.c -o scimark2 $ ./scimark2 Using 2.00 seconds min time per kenel. Composite Score: 432.84 FFT Mflops: 358.90 (N=1024) SOR Mflops: 473.45 (100 x 100) MonteCarlo: Mflops: 210.54 Sparse matmult Mflops: 354.25 (N=1000, nz=5000) LU Mflops: 767.04 (M=100, N=100) $ llvm-gcc -Wall -lm -O3 -msse3 *.c -o scimark2 $ ./scimark2 Composite Score: 548...

...>>> (see below)? >> > The x86 output is attached for those (which give the same results > here too) as > well as -O3 and -O3 -msse which give different results here. Here > are the > performance results I just got when redoing this on x86: > > MonteCarlo: Mflops: 212.20 -O3 > MonteCarlo: Mflops: 211.37 -O3 -msse > MonteCarlo: Mflops: 123.70 -O3 -msse2 > MonteCarlo: Mflops: 127.22 -O3 -msse3 Ok, thanks Jon! I diff'd the files and the -msse2 and -msse3 code is identical, so we're not doing anything wrong with...

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > I just remembered an anomalous result that I stumbled upon whilst tweaking the > command-line options to llvm-gcc. Specifically, the -msse3 flag The -msse3 flag? Does the -msse2 flag have a similar effect? -Eli

...g against release gcc 4.5.0, the results from the himenoBMTxpa benchmark compiled at -O3 look pretty good. With stock gcc-4.5.0, we get... Grid-size = M mimax = 128 mjmax = 128 mkmax = 256 imax = 127 jmax = 127 kmax =255 Start rehearsal measurement process. Measure the performance in 3 times. MFLOPS: 156.560865 time(s): 2.575476 1.733593e-03 Now, start the actual measurement process. The loop will be excuted in 69 times This will take about one minute. Wait for a while Loop executed for 69 times Gosa : 1.449961e-03 MFLOPS measured : 156.771134 cpu : 59.156498 Score based on Pentium...

Hi Peter, > Why not do this too? I've applied this - thanks for the patch! Ciao, Duncan.

I finally got around to testing this on a Bloomfield processor (Early 2009 MacPro 2x2.66 GHz dual-quad core) and the regressions from http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22589 are even more severe. For 10 runs of scimark2_1c built with "-O3 -march=native"... llvm 3.5.1 1204.16+/-2.66 Mflops 3.6 branch 866.49+/-1.26 Mflops Do you seriously want to ship with a 39% performance regression in a major benchmark? Jack On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 18 February 2015 at 14:37, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov&...

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Harrop" <jon at ffconsultancy.com> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 6:56 AM Subject: [LLVMdev] Performance vs other VMs > > The release of a new code generator in Mono 2.2 prompted me to benchmark > the > performance of various VMs using the SciMark2

They claim to max out at 1,800 MFLOPs And have a clock speed of up to 300 mhz. Jean-Marc Valin wrote: >Tell me how fast these chips are, I'll tell you if there's a chance... > > Jean-Marc > >Le jeu 18/12/2003 à 16:52, David Siebert a écrit : > > >>Anyone have any idea if the any of the Sharc or Tig...

Hello Developers, I am considering using SPEEX on an embedded processor that does not have a floating point unit. Does anybody have a SPEEX performance characterization on a fixed point processor? More specifically, I am interested in knowing how the MFLOPS values from Table 9.2 in the manual translate to fixed-point instructions when SPEEX is compiled with enable-fixed-point option. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Ilya ____________________________________________________________ Get educated. Click here for Adult Education programs....

...Gulch (Scott Ladd). In this update he compares GCC and ICC. You can read the article here: http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/linux_compilers/ Of particular note was his use of SciMark 2.0 which is a NIST developed benchmark for scientific computing. Its available in both java and C and computes a MFLOPS number. It would be good to include this in our test suite if we can (hint, hint, John). You can find it here: http://math.nist.gov/scimark2/index.html Reid. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189...

Hi, I have a module sampling raw PCM data on Win CE as 10ms time slice (160 bytes), mono, 8000HZ, 16 bits per sample. Does anyone know what is the mflops for using fixed point on a Win CE compared to using floating point? Looking at the manual, "In practice, frame_size will correspond to 20 ms when using 8, 16, or 32 kHz sampling rate." for a 8 kHz sampling, the framesize should be 320 right? But when i use speex_encoder_ctl(enc_stat...

The release of a new code generator in Mono 2.2 prompted me to benchmark the performance of various VMs using the SciMark2 benchmark on an 8x 2.1GHz 64-bit Opteron and I have published the results here: http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/mono-22.html The LLVM results were generated using llvm-gcc 4.2.1 on the C version of SciMark2 with the following command-line options: llvm-gcc

...SF gcc 4.6.0 and dragonegg svn with FSF gcc 4.5.3svn using the himenoBMTxpa benchmark, the enhancement to code performance from -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-enable-gcc-optzns is clear on x86_64-apple-darwin10 for -fomit-frame-pointer -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops... compiler MFLOPS clang 2.9 230.529385 gcc 4.5.3 246.064891 de-gcc 4.5.3 204.845864 de-gcc 4.5.3 optzns 259.672855 gcc 4.6.0 260.344783 Pretty impressive. Jack

...w the computational complexity is affected by different modes, assuming a fixed complexity setting. I saw in the documentation (Table 4 http://www.speex.org/docs/manual/speex-manual/node10.html) that going to higher data bit rate does not always increase the complexity (e.g. 11 kbps require 14 mflops while 15 kbps require 11 mflops). Is this correct? Would a fixed-point implementation have the same behavior? Thank you in advance. Best Regards, Emmanuel

...date he compares GCC and ICC. You > can read the article here: > http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/linux_compilers/ > > Of particular note was his use of SciMark 2.0 which is a NIST developed > benchmark for scientific computing. Its available in both java and C and > computes a MFLOPS number. It would be good to include this in our test > suite if we can (hint, hint, John). You can find it here: > http://math.nist.gov/scimark2/index.html > > Reid. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > __________________...

...agonegg svn with FSF gcc 4.5.3svn using the himenoBMTxpa benchmark, > the enhancement to code performance from -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-enable-gcc-optzns is > clear on x86_64-apple-darwin10 for -fomit-frame-pointer -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops... > > compiler MFLOPS > clang 2.9 230.529385 > gcc 4.5.3 246.064891 > de-gcc 4.5.3 204.845864 > de-gcc 4.5.3 optzns 259.672855 > gcc 4.6.0 260.344783 > > Pretty impressive. interesti...

Le mer 31/03/2004 à 02:51, George Bratis a écrit : > I think that if you want to use a low cost dsp you must rewrite ti in > assebmly. > In our tests you will need 4-5 times more MIPS just compiling C code. You may need to rewrite 3-4 compute-intensive, but definitely not the whole thing. Jean-Marc -- Jean-Marc Valin http://www.xiph.org/~jm/ LABORIUS Université de Sherbrooke,

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joerg Sonnenberger" <joerg at britannica.bec.de> > To: cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu, "llvmdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 7:42:11 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] [3.6 Release] RC3 has been tagged > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:12:20AM -0800, Hans Wennborg wrote: > > I

Anyone have any idea if the any of the Sharc or TigerSHARC DSPs are powerful enough to do realtime Speex? <p>--- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'speex-dev-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed.