21–30 of 114 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm interested in that story, what are you referring to with "GenuineIntel"?
Intel's C++ compiler is known to add branches in its generated code checking if the CPU is "GenuineIntel" and if not use a worse routine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_C%2B%2B_Compiler#Support... .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm interested in that story, what are you referring to with "GenuineIntel"?
Intel's C++ compiler is known to add branches in its generated code checking if the CPU is "GenuineIntel" and if not use a worse routine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_C%2B%2B_Compiler#Support... .
GenuineIntel moment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intel's C++ compiler is known to add branches in its generated code checking if the CPU is "GenuineIntel" and if not use a worse routine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_C%2B%2B_Compiler#Support... .
Is this for the runtime of the compiled code or for the compiling machine? Do they generate slow code if the compiler is running on non-intel?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intel's C++ compiler is known to add branches in its generated code checking if the CPU is "GenuineIntel" and if not use a worse routine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_C%2B%2B_Compiler#Support... .
Is this for the runtime of the compiled code or for the compiling machine? Do they generate slow code if the compiler is running on non-intel?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intel's C++ compiler is known to add branches in its generated code checking if the CPU is "GenuineIntel" and if not use a worse routine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_C%2B%2B_Compiler#Support... .
Is this for the runtime of the compiled code or for the compiling machine? Do they generate slow code if the compiler is running on non-intel?
> Rewrite the attention kernel to be persistent. This gives better performance at low-contexts. However, fp16 at large context has suffered a bit due to a ptxas instruction scheduling issue in the softmax partition. fp8 is ~100 tflops faster when the kernel name has "cutlass" in it.
The charitable reading is that, on certain kernels, using fp8 rather than fp16 values gives better performance. (Although I can't even see how the numbers relate to a "~100 tflops faster" claim in any respect, nor does it even list any kernel names or suggest a control kernel!) But this is being presented as if someone has uncovered evidence of cheating on benchmarks.