21–30 of 111 posts
This has been discussed on HN before. I don't condone Intel behavior, but let's be honest here: AMD underinvests in software and expects others to pick up the slack. That isn't acceptable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What should they have done instead? Built a compiler with a "cripple Intel" function? So people would have to download the executable that's fastest on their CPU, even though they use the same instruction set? The issue here is that they used a slower code path even on CPUs that could run the faster one, just because they were made by a competitor. You say "AMD should have made their own compiler", but why? What else…
Very likely, this was not done intentionally. I think we can simply imagine a common scenario: some employee working for Company X, developing a compiler suite, and adding necessary optimizations for Company X's processors. Meanwhile, Company Y's processors don't get as much focus (perhaps due to the employee not knowing about Company Y's CPUIDs, supported optimizations for different models, etc.). Thus, Company Y's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What should they have done instead? Built a compiler with a "cripple Intel" function? So people would have to download the executable that's fastest on their CPU, even though they use the same instruction set? The issue here is that they used a slower code path even on CPUs that could run the faster one, just because they were made by a competitor. You say "AMD should have made their own compiler", but why? What else…
AMD should concentrate on making LLVM and GCC work great on AMD processors, by contributing the needed code. They are already making some contributions but could be doing more, and they could be funding experts to work on that and giving those experts the information they need.
It's Intel that tends to phone this in and make everyone else pick up the slack.
This has been discussed on HN before. I don't condone Intel behavior, but let's be honest here: AMD underinvests in software and expects others to pick up the slack. That isn't acceptable.
I think it's great if a hardware company leaves the software for others. This leads to open specifications.
This has been discussed on HN before. I don't condone Intel behavior, but let's be honest here: AMD underinvests in software and expects others to pick up the slack. That isn't acceptable.
https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/intel-and-the-x86-archit...
However, this will become moot as even Intel is shifting towards LLVM.
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/t...
This has been discussed on HN before. I don't condone Intel behavior, but let's be honest here: AMD underinvests in software and expects others to pick up the slack. That isn't acceptable.
There's a variety of options that are available here, and I don't buy the argument that AMD's behavior is automatically unethical. A. Company makes and sells hardware, and offers no software. B. Company makes and sells uniquely featured hardware, and offers software that uses those unique features. C. Company makes and sells hardware that adheres to an industry standard, and offers software that targets hardware adhe…
AMD has optimized libraries https://developer.amd.com/amd-aocl/ and their own compilers: https://developer.amd.com/amd-aocc/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It certainly is still relevant. Please read the article (and the 2020 update below) before commenting on it.
yup, infact recently MATLAB applied a fix to this for their software [1] [1] https://www.extremetech.com/computing/308501-crippled-no-lon...
AMD’s performance improves by 1.32x – 1.37x overall… changing what looked like a narrow victory [for Intel] over the 3960X and a good showing against the 3970X into an all-out loss. https://www.extremetech.com/computing/302650-how-to-bypass-m...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very likely, this was not done intentionally. I think we can simply imagine a common scenario: some employee working for Company X, developing a compiler suite, and adding necessary optimizations for Company X's processors. Meanwhile, Company Y's processors don't get as much focus (perhaps due to the employee not knowing about Company Y's CPUIDs, supported optimizations for different models, etc.). Thus, Company Y's…
I don't think you read the article. Go read it first before you make your hypothesis. If it was as easy to fix as using a environment variable (which no longer works) then it was done intentionally.
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article.
This has been discussed on HN before. I don't condone Intel behavior, but let's be honest here: AMD underinvests in software and expects others to pick up the slack. That isn't acceptable.
AMD[1], NVidia[2] do "make" their own compilers. AMD is notorious for a "build it and they will come" mentality. Despite the fact that this hasn't worked. AMD needs to make it easy to adopt their hardware, and the way this is done is with software. When they finally get to the point that their driver/libs are as easy to install as Nvidia's , it might be too late. I've argued this with AMD folks before. The barriers t…
This has been discussed on HN before. I don't condone Intel behavior, but let's be honest here: AMD underinvests in software and expects others to pick up the slack. That isn't acceptable.
There's a variety of options that are available here, and I don't buy the argument that AMD's behavior is automatically unethical. A. Company makes and sells hardware, and offers no software. B. Company makes and sells uniquely featured hardware, and offers software that uses those unique features. C. Company makes and sells hardware that adheres to an industry standard, and offers software that targets hardware adhe…