Slashdot Mirror


Next-Gen Intel Chip Brings Big Gains For Floating-Point Apps

An anonymous reader writes "Tom's Hardware has published a lengthy article and a set of benchmarks on the new "Haswell" CPUs from Intel. It's just a performance preview, but it isn't just more of the same. While it's got the expected 10-15% faster for the same clock speed for integer applications, floating point applications are almost twice as a fast which might be important for digital imaging applications and scientific computing." The serious performance increase has a few caveats: you have to use either AVX2 or FMA3, and then only in code that takes advantage of vectorization. Floating point operations using AVX or plain old SSE3 see more modest increases in performance (in line with integer performance increases).

17 of 176 comments (clear)

  1. Let's see... by bluegutang · · Score: 5, Funny

    " Next-Gen Intel Chip Brings Big Gains For Floating-Point Apps "

    How much of a gain? More or less than 0.00013572067699?

    1. Re:Let's see... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's a joke. The Intel P5 Pentium FPU had a bug where

      4195835/3145727=1.333739068902037589 The correct answer is 1.333820449136241002.

  2. Hope it's going in the new Mac Pro by GlobalEcho · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I hope there's really a new Mac Pro coming and that it has these chips in it! I do a heck of a lot of PDE solving, statistics and simulations, and would love to have a screamin' machine again.

    1. Re:Hope it's going in the new Mac Pro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you really need a Mac for that? If not, it seems you're limiting your potential by having to wait for the holy artifacts to be released.

    2. Re:Hope it's going in the new Mac Pro by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you're doing numerics, what the fuck (if you'll pardon my French) are you doing buying Apple? I'm working on two-phase Navier-Stokes solvers myself, and I just bought a new rig consisting of 3 boxes each with a Intel Core i7 @ 3.7 GHz, 12 GB RAM, an SSD drive and a big-ass cooling system. In total that cost less than the Mac Pro with a single Core i7 @ 3.3 GHz listed in that article.You're paying 3x more than you should, and you get what extra? A shiny case? Puh-lease.

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    3. Re:Hope it's going in the new Mac Pro by spire3661 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why not just do that on real workstation hardware and tap into it remotely?

      --
      Good-bye
    4. Re:Hope it's going in the new Mac Pro by Aardpig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Erm -- ECC memory is slower than non-ECC memory, I think.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    5. Re:Hope it's going in the new Mac Pro by washu_k · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Core i7's are consumer-grade processors and are slower than the Xeon's the Mac Pros use

      This is completely incorrect. The current Mac Pros use Nehalem based Xeons which are two generations back from the current Ivy Bridge i7s. Xeons may have differences in core count, cache and/or ECC support but their execution units are the same as their desktop equivalents. The base Mac Pro CPU is equivalent to an i7-960 with ECC support. The current Ivy Bridge i7s are a fair bit faster.

    6. Re:Hope it's going in the new Mac Pro by KonoWatakushi · · Score: 5, Informative

      ECC memory is only marginally slower. Considering error rates and modern memory sizes, it is far past time that it became a standard feature. The extra cost would be totally insignificant if were standard, and not used as an excuse to gouge people on Xeons.

  3. Might be important, but probably not... by MasseKid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For problems where you need floating point AND is not multithread friendly AND need large computing power AND is specially coded, then this will be of great use. However, most massive computing problems like this are multi-thread friendly and this will still be roughly an order of magnitude from the speeds you can get by using a GPU.

    1. Re:Might be important, but probably not... by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The good thing about manufacturers speeding up SSE/AVX/etc. is that the linear algebra libraries (specifically the ATLAS implementation of BLAS and LAPACK) usually release code that makes use of the new hawtness in about six months after release. Do you know how much software relies on BLAS and LAPACK for speed?

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
  4. Re:Would that improve hashing speeds in, say, Bitc by slashmydots · · Score: 4, Informative

    Slightly, but you haven't been keeping up on the latest hardware? My pair of Sapphire 5830's graphics cards would top off at about 435MH/s at a total system wattage of around 520W. The new Jalapeno chips from butterfly labs will do 4500 MH/s using 2 watts total system power. For comparison, my i5-2400 performed 14MH/s at 95W or so. So the Jalapeno is about 321x faster and about 47x more power efficient so combined, I believe that's 15,267.864x more efficient.

  5. Less rounding of floating point numbers by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    While it's got the expected 10-15% faster for the same clock speed for integer applications, floating point applications are almost twice as a fast HTH

    Integer and floating point are separately implemented in the hardware, so an improvement to one often doesn't apply to the other. You can add integers by counting on your fingers. To do that with floating point, you have to cut your fingers into fractions of fingers - a very different process.
    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMA3
    It's common to have an accumulator like this:

    X = X + (Y * Z)

    To compute that in floating points, the processor normally does:

    A= ROUND(Y*Z) X=ROUND(X+A)

    Each ROUND() is necessary because the processor only has 64 bits in which to store the endless digits after the decimal point. FMA can fuse the multiply and the add, getting rid of one rounding step, and the intermediate variable:

    X= ROUND( X + (Y*Z) )

    That makes it faster. Since integers don't get rounded to the available precision, the optimization doesn't apply to integers. The above processor would do Y*Z, then +X, then round, then X=. A CPU designer can make that faster by including either a "add and multiply" circuit or a "add and round" circuit or a "round and assign' circuit. Any set of operations can be done in two clock cycles, if the maker decides to include a hardware circuit for it.

  6. Re:Would that improve hashing speeds in, say, Bitc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Would that improve hashing speeds in, say, Bitcoin?

    Bitcoin is based on SHA256 hashing, which has zero floating point operations. So no, this will not impact Bitcoin mining at all.

  7. FMA4 by ssam · · Score: 3, Informative

    Pah. AMD had FMA4 since 2011

  8. GT3 by edxwelch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    AMD has lost the CPU race a long time ago, but still beats Intel with integrated graphics. Now, It looks like Haswell could win that battle too.
    The article shows GT2 to be 15% - 50% faster than the old HD4000. That's still a bit slower than Trinity, but GT3 has double the execution units than GT2, potentially blowing anything away that AMD could offer.

  9. Re:Poor AMD by dshk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AMD already has FMA3. They also published great results. Of course nobody read it, at least I have seen mentioned it in the usual generic benchmark articles people like to refer (which does not use FMA3).