<%BANNER[top_768x90]%>
<%BANNER[banner_468x60_h]%>
<%BANNER[article]%>

News

<%BANNER[fp_160x600_r_1]%>

Yesterday’s critical article on this web-site about the G5 benchmarks from Apple received so much attention from hardware community that today Greg Joswiak, Vice President of Hardware Product Marketing for Apple Computer gave a phone interview in which he defended his company’s performance claims for the G5 processor.

At first, he said that SSE2 instructions were turned on during compilation of SPECCPU2000 tests. Having read the test report from VeriTest and GCC web-site, we have to say that yesterday’s claim about absence of SSE2 support was not correct. This claim came from misunderstanding of GCC optimization flags.

Mr. Joswiak added that the Hyper-Threading feature of Intel Pentium 4 processors was disabled in certain tests due to the fact that the Pentium 4 with Hyper-Threading enabled produced lower scores in these tests than «non-HyperThreaded» processor with the same frequency. Speaking about some modifications made to Apple systems, Mr. Joswiak said that memory read bypass option and software-based pre-fetching would be on by default on shipping systems. He is not sure only about modified malloc function that is faster, but less memory-efficient and, as VeriTest (a company which benchmarks hardware for Apple) says, “unsuitable for many users” (but perfectly suitable for benchmarking, I guess).

Answering the main question – why his company used GCC compiler for Intel-based systems, Mr. Joswiak said that this compiler was used because the test was intended to compare only hardware and not compilers, thus it would be logical to use the same compiler for all platforms. It appears that the reason for the performance drop in Pentium 4 scores in comparison to official SPEC scores is using GCC compiler, instead of Intel compiler. The main point here is that GCC in its present state is unable to produce vectorised SSE2 instructions, thus Intel Pentium 4 performance drops significantly.

I personally think that use of a single compiler for all platforms is doubtful decision, as in its G5 performance page Apple says that “Professional applications tested by Apple in June 2003 using preproduction Power Mac G5 units and, with the exception of HMMer, application software optimized for the PowerPC G5”. If you use software, optimized for G5, why don’t use the software, particularly the compiler, optimized for Intel Pentium 4?

Also, it is quite strange at first sight that there are no comparisons of G5 to AMD processors, dubbed Athlon XP and Opteron. I think the point here is that using GCC compiler instead of Intel’s will not result in big performance drop for AMD CPUs as they are less or not (in case of Athlon XP) dependant from SSE2 instructions. In addition, Opteron performs calculations using scalar SSE2 instructions much faster than Pentium 4 and even slightly faster than itself using vectorised SSE2 instructions (see here). Thus, it would be hard to set G5 in good light compared to AMD Opteron by switching to GCC compiler.

Editor’s Note: Apple has just made what it wanted to: it made a PC hardware web-site to post a news-story or two about Macs.

<%BANNER[banner_468x60_f]%>

Discussion

<%BANNER[fp_160x600_r_2]%>
Comments currently: 8
Discussion started: 06/25/03 08:54:42 PM
Latest comment: 06/26/03 08:45:32 PM

[1-8]

1. 
macs rape
[Posted by: fuk u | Date: 06/25/03 08:54:42 PM]

2. 
test
[Posted by: bjorn | Date: 06/26/03 08:57:53 AM]

3. 
I'm sure the true purpose behind the G5 processor was to get xbitlabs to write a story or two about it.

give me a break
[Posted by: whatever | Date: 06/26/03 09:25:22 AM]

4. 
OK,

INTEL C++ compiler $ 400
INTEL Fortran compiler $ 500
Microquill Smartheap lib $1000
Total 1900 US dollars

or I can use gcc $0

now which would I use in my startup company?
couple years ago there was a lot of talk how intel rigged their
compilers to detect specmarks and then run them really fast.

Note that most of the spec2000 for intel based machines use Smartheap.

Redhat/SUSE etc are compiled with what compiler?

Bjorn

[Posted by: bjorn | Date: 06/26/03 09:30:21 AM]

5. 
This is a Catch-22 situation. If you try to level the playing field by removing as many variables as you can (use the GCC Compiler not different compilers optimized for the different platforms) you get snipped at for "Hobbling your Competition" by not showing them off "in their best light". If you do use optimized methods, you are now "cheating" since the methods of doing the measurements are different for the machines. The only way of yanking the carpet from under those we will complain no matter which method you use (they will use any excuse so long as their pet platform is not shown to be as good as yours) is to do BOTH versions of the tests and publish both results. That way, they can pick which way they want you to do the comparison and you will have done it "Their Way".

Also, the "Optimized" method was covered by the "Real World" tests since they are comparing programs optimized for their respective platforms while doing the same task.

You can never satisfy those whose "Ox is Getting Gored" (Pun Intended in relation to the Apple Board Member of that name) since they will only accept methodologies that show their platform is better than yours and will never accept any method that tries to remove incompatible differences.
[Posted by: RARPSL | Date: 06/26/03 09:44:43 AM]

6. 
The *professional applications* Apple tested were optimised for the G5. That means Photoshop, Logic, et cetera. And they were tested against counterparts that have been similarly optimised for the Pentium.

But the GCC compiler has zero G5-specific optimisations. Zero. So they compared a compiler not optimised at all for their specific chip (only in a general PowerPC sense, but nothing specific) against a compiler that *has* some (though not all possible) optimisations built into it for the Pentium.

Not a totally level playing field, but as close as you can get today, since, I repeat, there is currently NO SUCH THING as a compiler with G5-specific optimisations. Once it is out for a little while, there will be.

You should just admit that you were wrong about the GCC compiler unfairly favouring the G5. It doesn't.
[Posted by: Dogger | Date: 06/26/03 01:40:15 PM]

7. 
" If you use software, optimized for G5, why don’t use the software, particularly the compiler, optimized for Intel Pentium 4?"

The PPC970 chip, aka G5, is a new chip and requires different code generation for optimum scheduling and performance than a G4 does. Apple and IBM have been working on the code generation for the G5/PPC970 chip. I assume that Apple's version of gcc 3.3 includes this work by Apple and IBM. In addition, Apple has their own additions to the compiler to support their version of the Objective-C language and the OS X runtime system. These changes eventually find their way back to the main gcc code tree as specified by the GPL, but I would assume that these code enhancements and changes for v3.3 have not yet been submitted to the GNU project. I would doubt that Apple would have a special version of gcc just for the SPEC benchmarks.

Intel has their own compilers that are optimized for benchmarks but are not used by everyday apps. This is a well known ploy by Intel. Intel supplied SPEC results will tend to be higher than other compilers on Linux or Windows machines using Intel chips because of this. This is not indicative of real performance as the compilers are optimized for benchmarks.

gcc has been highly optimized for x86 since x86 is the prevailing architecture in the computer world. That means that more man hours have gone in to x86 code generation than probably any other architecture supported by gcc, so the gcc code on Intel should be pretty good as far as gcc code goes. In benchmarking x86 processors, you should probably use Microsoft's compiler on Windows and gcc on Linux.
[Posted by: bbnj | Date: 06/26/03 02:22:34 PM]

8. 
but gcc already has some Power4 optimisations, which (for the most part) would do just as well on the PPC970.
[Posted by: Halo | Date: 06/26/03 08:45:32 PM]

[1-8]

You must log in to add comments.

Forgot password? Registration

remember me



Latest News

Friday, October 10, 2008

11:40 am | Apple Warns End-Users of Faulty Nvidia Graphics Processing Units. Apple Claims Nvidia Misinformed Company of Lack of Problems with GPUs

Thursday, October 9, 2008

4:50 pm | Consumer Electronics Devices Set to Get Wi-Fi Support – Analysts. Shipments of Consumer Electronics Devices with Wi-Fi to Reach 1 Billion by 2012, Says In-Stat

3:04 pm | Asustek Reveals Eee PC Aimed at Demanding End-Users. Asus Eee PC S101 Debuts, Show Style and Higher Price

11:56 am | Micron Plans Layoffs Amid Rumoured Plans to Acquire Qimonda. Micron Technology to Restructure Memory Operations

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

4:39 pm | Nvidia’s Partners Reluctant to Adopt New Flavour of a High-End Chip. Graphics Card Makers Hesitant to Produce GeForce GTX 260-216

11:15 am | Intel Sells Off Rackmount Server Operations to Kontron. Kontron Acquires Rackmount Server Business from Intel

7:34 am | Microsoft Preps External Blu-Ray Disc Optical Drive for Xbox 360. Microsoft Has Blu-Ray Drive for Xbox 360 Ready, Release Date Under Consideration

3:46 am | AMD Plans to Produce ATI Graphics Processor at The Foundry Company. The Foundry Company to Seek for Non-CPU Customers