Comment by ori_b
15 days ago
Something is definitely up. Is there a VM? are you running in a container with seccomp?
Why are your calls to sqrt so slow on your newest machine? Why is sqrtrec free on the others?
15 days ago
Something is definitely up. Is there a VM? are you running in a container with seccomp?
Why are your calls to sqrt so slow on your newest machine? Why is sqrtrec free on the others?
No VM, no container. I could check the asm later on but sqrtrec is likely "free" because it was optimized away, no fences in the code neither so this might be an artifact of different versions of gcc being used across two different platforms.
As for the sqrt, I don't think it is unusually slow if we compare it against the results from the table above - it's definitely not an outlier since the recorded range is from 1ns to 15ns and I recorded the value of 8ns. Why is that so is not a question here.
Better question is why are your results such a big outlier?
Are you sure they're outliers? Here's someone else with similar results:
https://arkanis.de/weblog/2017-01-05-measurements-of-system-...
Google also reported similar numbers in 2011, when publicizing their fiber work.
I can also get similar numbers (~68ns) on 9front, though a little higher.
Data suggests that they are, and common sense too. And your point of reference is a little bit problematic since there's no code attached so it's hard for people to validate the measurements.
Since you have been laser-focused on sqrt "bad" performance, and obvious optimization with sqrtrec, but also decided to ignore the rest of the results, maybe you can explain why there is such a large difference in your measurements between seemingly very similar platforms in terms of compute. After all this is pure compute problem.
For example, why does 4.9GHz CPU (AMD Ryzen™ 5 7545U) yield 2x to 4x worse results than 5.5GHz CPU (AMD Ryzen™ 7 9700X)?
2 replies →