Which processor faster for compiling java and c++

From Visual Basic to GNU C, this is the place to talk programming.

Moderators: SecretSquirrel, just brew it!

Which processor faster for compiling java and c++

Postposted on Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:00 pm

Intel or AMD? Which generally compiles programs faster in these two languages?
Asus Laptop Core 2 duo 2.53Ghz, 4GB RAM, 500GB Momentus XT, radeon 4670m
wagsbags
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 12:27 am
Location: Bethesda, MD

Postposted on Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:03 pm

Short answer is who's compiler? Different compilers do different things. For the most part, they're pretty close.
No wonder television's a medium. It's so seldom rare or well done. -Mighty Mouse
Image
HowardDrake
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
 
Posts: 3568
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Action Jim's Rumpus Room

Postposted on Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:10 pm

You're going to have to be more specific. Both languages are available in multiple versions from multiple vendors, and they're not going to all perform the same.

Anandtech has a comparison of Visual Studio running one compile (of the Quake 3 source, so it's a resonable test) here

AMD's Athlon 64 pretty convincingly stomps the P4 in that one.
UberGerbil
Gerbil Khan
 
Posts: 9973
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 3:11 pm

Postposted on Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:11 pm

I'm pretty sure the nature of compiling, lots of usually unpredictable jumps, would mean that amd chips generally perform better.
Yahoolian
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
 
Posts: 3576
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 3:43 pm
Location: MD

Postposted on Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:06 pm

Yahoolian wrote:I'm pretty sure the nature of compiling, lots of usually unpredictable jumps, would mean that amd chips generally perform better.


Benchies to prove/disprove? I admit I have no idea if your viewpoint is valid, but a pseudo-blanket statement such as yours begs for some empirical data, n'est-ce pas?
It is one of the blessings of old friends that you can afford to be stupid with them. Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 20120
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Postposted on Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:08 am

Captain Ned wrote:
Yahoolian wrote:I'm pretty sure the nature of compiling, lots of usually unpredictable jumps, would mean that amd chips generally perform better.


Benchies to prove/disprove? I admit I have no idea if your viewpoint is valid, but a pseudo-blanket statement such as yours begs for some empirical data, n'est-ce pas?
From a theoretical standpoint, his viewpoint is completely valid. Compilers (and especially optimizing compilers) use algorithms that tend to emphasize branches over loops. In the simplest case, a compiler has a single loop over the program input, with the body of the loop containing several switch statements. When optimizations come into play (common expression elimination, hoisting, loop unrolling, etc) you have more switches. Often a lot more. A compiler thus tends towards the "more jumps/branches than loops" end of the spectrum, whereas a signal processing application like an MP3 encoder tends towards the other end. The P4, with its long pipeline and high memory bandwidth, is optimized for loops not branches (everytime it mispredicts a branch you have a potential stall and pipeline flush). This is why it does so well on encoding tasks, and why you would expect it to not do as well in compilation.

And if you follow the link I posted above, you will see that's exactly what happened. At least on that one bench, though it's a pretty good one and probably indicative of relative performance in this type of task in general. I haven't bothered to look for more tests of this type, though I'd be interested to see them if anyone has links.
UberGerbil
Gerbil Khan
 
Posts: 9973
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: Which processor faster for compiling java and c++

Postposted on Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:11 am

wagsbags wrote:Intel or AMD? Which generally compiles programs faster in these two languages?


are you really making your purchase decision based on this?
i am curious... because unless you are compiling very Large programs it doesnt take that long to compile anything.

and as for the question.. i dont knwo :)
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 4371
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Re: Which processor faster for compiling java and c++

Postposted on Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:14 am

danny e. wrote: and as for the question.. i dont knwo :)


i cant seem to spell correctly either
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 4371
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Postposted on Fri Mar 19, 2004 2:38 am

i cant seem to spell correctly either


Or find the edit button. :wink:
Yahoolian
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
 
Posts: 3576
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 3:43 pm
Location: MD

Postposted on Sun Mar 21, 2004 9:39 pm

Yahoolian wrote:
i cant seem to spell correctly either


Or find the edit button. :wink:


Give him a break, it took me quite a while to find out there was such a thing as an edit button :oops:
Windows XP - The 64-bit wannabe with a 32-bit graphics interface for 16-bit extensions to a 8-bit patch on a 4-bit operating system designed to run on a 2-bit processor by a company that can't stand 1-bit of competition
fc34
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2816
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere

Postposted on Sat Mar 27, 2004 3:41 pm

Actually I was just asking for my roommate because his parents are Computer Scientists and ironically they always buy dells, no building their own computers, no upgrading, they just buy a new Dell every year or so. Visual C++ is what one of them uses.
Asus Laptop Core 2 duo 2.53Ghz, 4GB RAM, 500GB Momentus XT, radeon 4670m
wagsbags
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 12:27 am
Location: Bethesda, MD

Postposted on Sat Mar 27, 2004 7:13 pm

wagsbags wrote:Actually I was just asking for my roommate because his parents are Computer Scientists and ironically they always buy dells, no building their own computers, no upgrading, they just buy a new Dell every year or so. Visual C++ is what one of them uses.


On some level thats just disturbing as heck. Computer scientists that prefer Dells? Maybe I'm too old-school to appreciate that.
No wonder television's a medium. It's so seldom rare or well done. -Mighty Mouse
Image
HowardDrake
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
 
Posts: 3568
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Action Jim's Rumpus Room

Postposted on Sat Mar 27, 2004 7:39 pm

lol yeah I agree, my roommate is good at CS but didn't know who amd is. But then again I guess he doesn't really need to, he doesn't build them he programs *shrug*
Asus Laptop Core 2 duo 2.53Ghz, 4GB RAM, 500GB Momentus XT, radeon 4670m
wagsbags
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 12:27 am
Location: Bethesda, MD

Postposted on Sat Mar 27, 2004 7:50 pm

Just because they are computer scientists, doesn't mean they know anything about computers (just know how to make programs). Kinda...sad...but true in many cases.
Porky
Gerbil In Training
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 9:33 am

Postposted on Sat Mar 27, 2004 9:32 pm

Porky wrote:Just because they are computer scientists, doesn't mean they know anything about computers (just know how to make programs). Kinda...sad...but true in many cases.
Very true. Computer scientists aren't necessarily computer hardware people, or even competent software users. I had a c++ professor that would write up his examples in html. One time the fonts were too small, and rather than changing the font size in his browser, he sshed into the server and edited the source. The only guarantee you have about computer science people is that they can likely code some.
...
mattsteg
Gerbil God
 
Posts: 15752
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Applauding the new/old variable width forums


Return to Developer's Den

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest