![]() If it will benefit, these libraries may include some hand tuned SIMD code, which may include an AVX2 code path for CPUs that support it. ![]() But if the application has another purpose and rendering is incidental, it will call the system's one even if it isn't the fastest one around or producing the highest quality results around. An application whose primary purpose is rendering won't call that, because hopefully it will do a better job. Over the years system provided libraries have expanded and today might include stuff you could only dream about in the past like matrix multiplication, functions that are part of a rendering pipeline or actually perform the entire rendering task themselves. 99.999% of applications will call a sort function provided by the system libraries. their own sort routine in their application, unless their application's entire purpose is to provide a better/faster sort. People don't re-invent the wheel and code e.g. They will all make plenty of calls to system libraries. Just playing Devil's Advocate here for a moment, the argument against your position would be that real world applications aren't self contained. Kudos to them for not catering to Cinebench/DC runner crowd. So GB6 is my opinion a great desktop/workstation performance test that emphasizes the way people actually use CPUs in 2023 and is brave enough to shatter illusions of people who disagree that 8 strong cores are plenty and the rest ( be it 8 more strong cores or 16 marketing cores ) gives very diminishing gains. In previous GB5 we had retarded outliers like say FFT or encryption that were directly calculating "throughput" and would probably make sense to double FLops just by using some vendor library or some short code that gets autovectorized and support AVX512.Įven then CPU vendors found that it is easier to pad the score by including some 256bit V_AES instruction with ridiculous throughput that made some new laptop beat a whole server in AES encryption throughput ( and of course utterly suck in real world, as to actually serve up content for encryption and deliver it/from requires actual server). The other tests could hardly use AVX512 without proper handwritten code paths and that would defeat multi platform and vendor "agnostic" part of the tests - ARM guys would ask for SVE3 with 666bit vectors and so on. With current set of tests, there are not that many where AVX512 could help much with direct recompile of same code. I think the "unrealistic expectations" part is spot on here. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |