Re: Speed of Mathematica on AMD machines
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg126451] Re: Speed of Mathematica on AMD machines
- From: A Retey <awnl at gmx-topmail.de>
- Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 04:50:43 -0400 (EDT)
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Hi, > In the past, Intel had been known to engage in anticompetitive practices > with respect to AMD, and quite rightly was subject to legal penalties for > this. (Specifically, they encouraged large computer manufacturers such as > ... > which both show that Bulldozer performance is a very mixed bag in general. > While there are a few applications in which it can match or only just > outperform Intel's offerings, for the most part it falls behind them > considerably. Very good points, Oleksandr, I agree with everything except that you could argue just as well that the the performance of intels processors is a mixed bag, after all they could be expected to be faster where Bulldozer matches or outperforms them. I think the point is that processors (and more important: bundles of hardware+OS+software) _are_ different and there is not a single number which you can reliably use to compare them -- your best deal depends on what exactly you are doing. That's not a very new finding though, you'll find that conclusion everywhere (actually whether that conclusion is made is a good measure of quality and impartiality of what you read). If you really try to find the optimal deal that's a tough job, and I think even experts can't do reliable forecasts without some experimentation on the real thing. Fortunately processors are so fast nowadays that you can get done quite a lot even with a poor choice... albert PS: All this of course doesn't change the fact that Intel has the better package for a majority of use cases these days...