[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: mtune=nocona



On 6/9/05, kas <kas11 tampabay rr com> wrote:
> Of course, on through -m64 was as expected.  I'm just a bit surprised
> that it didn't say mtune=k8 since it was definitely building on one ...
> which begs the question ... is GCC (and hence the entire x86_64
> distribution) being built this way?  What are the K8 performance
> implications?  I've seen a few things that indicate that Nocona cores
> running K8 code look pretty bad in some areas compared to optimized
> code...however, I find nothing to indicate how nocona optimized code
> runs on the K8.

Well... if you really want to find out for yourself you could run benchs.
I'm pretty confident that the distro-wide settings are close to the
best if not the best settings to provide the best average performance
for people using the variety of x86_64 chips in the wild. I highly
doubt Core is ever going to decide its worth the support and
maintainence hassle to distro tuned optimally for just a 64bit amd
chip or just a 64bit intel chip.  When you are only going to ship one
version of the distro to cover several chips.. you make choices as to
what performance hits your are going to allow. I'm very confident that
the choices made for Core allow both intel and amd hardware users to
have reasonable good performance from the same binaries.

-jef


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]