In a discussion today with some colleagues the subject of the Intel C/C++ compiler came up. The conventional wisdom in HPC still seems to be that Intel C/C++ produces native code with higher performance than, say, GCC or Clang, for the same set of input C/C++ sources (and associated set of MPI libra…

I believe in theory a high level language compiler could generate code for an algorithm that is faster than the C/C++ compiler if it has more information about the data objects and usage than the C/C++ compiler is allowed to assume. I don’t know if Julia has that information or not. I suspect in c…

A side question is if the Intel compiler could be used to build Julia on Windows.

[image] pixel27: This question also get’s into the “fast enough” question. As programmers (in general) we are not going for the fastest execution of code, we are going for fast enough. If we wanted the absolute fasted we’d probably be writing in assembler or compiling down to assembler then hand…

[image] pixel27: If we wanted the absolute fasted we’d probably be writing in assembler or compiling down to assembler then hand tuning that code. In my (very limited) understanding assembler code is only efficient if written explicitly for the concrete hardware / microarchitecture you are us…

@paulmelis this is a great topic for discussion. I work in HPC and I agree that there is ‘folk wisdom’ that the Intel compilers buy you performance. That was certainly the case in the past, and probably is true today. I would love to see that Julia comparison between latest generation CPUs also. M…

[image] johnh: Moving the discussion along a little, in the past on this forum we have seen benchmarking reports with Julia code which in the end turn out to be dominated by the BLAS library performance. Multithreaded Julia matrix multiply (specifically, Octavian.jl ) “dominates” MKL <100x100,…

For general compiler optimizations, I don’t think high-level language differs much from low-level languages because a lot of these optimizations happens at a rather low level. They must be done at low level because these kinds of program transformation replies on some specific program properties, su…

icc is not officially supported for building Julia base. It won’t buy you much anyways, since it only affects the Julia runtime, which typically doesn’t handle anything performance sensitive.

Do note that there is a fair amount of Intel activity in contributing to LLVM. Here is Intel’s staging area for such contributions: [image] GitHub - intel/llvm: Intel staging area for llvm.org contribution. Home for... Intel staging area for llvm.org contribution. Home for Intel LLVM-bas…

[image] simeonschaub: icc is not officially supported for building Julia base. It won’t buy you much anyways, since it only affects the Julia runtime, which typically doesn’t handle anything performance sensitive. Given the different cries of LLVM becoming noticeably slower and slower it seem…

Intel C/C++ compiler performance versus Julia

Offtopic

mkitti May 28, 2021, 10:22am 10

Do note that there is a fair amount of Intel activity in contributing to LLVM. Here is Intel’s staging area for such contributions:

Topic		Replies	Views
Any benchmark of Julia v1.0 vs older versions Performance	66	8422	April 3, 2019
Julia vs Fortran complaint General Usage fortran	25	14828	July 20, 2017
OpenBLAS is faster than Intel MKL on AMD Hardware (Ryzen) Performance blas , lapack	40	37146	June 19, 2020
Julia gets mentioned in an article about FORTRAN Community	116	11754	May 27, 2021
Show off Julia performance on your PC! Performance	53	4596	April 26, 2020

Intel C/C++ compiler performance versus Julia

Related topics