>
> > jest to pewnego rodzaju hipoteza ale jak kogos to
> > interesuje to powinien pomierzyc lub conajmniej poczytac
> > jakies w miare aktualne porownania bo
> > pewnie sa jakies w necie (i moglby wpisac
> > wyniki na grupe)
> Liczyłem że ktoś bardzo doświadczony w asemblerze coś konkretnego
> powie w tym wątku, na razie wszyscy łącznie ze mną bazujemy na
> przypuszczeniach.
>

w necie jest np taka ciekawa stronka
z benchmarkami

http://www.willus.com/ccomp_benchmark2.shtml?p2

moge przekleic najciekawsze kawałki z podsumowamia:

In my 2002 Benchmarks, Intel did very well. On the two benchmarks common to both 2002
and 2011 (BW1D and LAME), the average performance improvement of the fastest
Intel-compiled code over the fastest gcc-compiled code was almost 80%. Intel had a
similar performance margin over Microsoft in 2002. In 2011, on the otherhand, the
result is similar, but the balance of power is shifting. Intel is still the overall
winner based on a geometric mean of the performance scores, but this time the margins
over gcc and Microsoft are only 7 - 26% (over gcc, depending on the compile flags and
32/64-bit--the best results, 64-bit, averaged 18% faster than gcc's) and 13 - 22%
(over microsoft), respectively, and on six of the ten benchmarks, the fastest
gcc-compiled executable is either faster or equivalent to (within 6%) the fastest
Intel-compiled executable (MS VC 2010 only had one result within 6% of Intel's
fastest score). This sort of performance seems roughly in line with what other people
are getting or have gotten recently between Intel and gcc

w skrócie: intel jest szybszy czesto o okolo 30
procend (sporadycznie o 0% albo o np 70%) wobec gcc i vcc ktore sa mw podobnej
szybkosci

Digital Mars and Tiny CC certainly leave a lot to be desired in terms of run-time
performance of their compiled executables (2.3X and 4.5X slower than Intel,
respectively, on average), but for ease of setup and use, install size, and fast
compiling, they are hard to beat, especially Tiny CC, which, on average, compiles and
links C applications nearly 4X faster than its closest competitor (Microsoft), 7X
faster than gcc 4.6.3, and over 10X faster than Intel!

male kompilatory kompiluja szybciej ale naiwnie
generowany kod jest nawet ze 4 razy wolniejszy niz
ten optymalizowany

pozatym narzekania ze intel jest kobylasty ponag gigabajt instalki - co tez mi sie
nie podoba

Intel's Transcendent Transcendental Performance
Two of Intel's clearest-cut victories are in BW1D and TRANSCEND. Both of these
benchmarks make heavy use of sincos(), pow(), and other transcendental C math
functions, so I wrote some programs to isolate the performance of these functions a
la my MinGW fast math function testing code. Sure enough, Intel is definitely doing
some in-line transcendental magic. On my sincos() loop test, the Intel-compiled
version is 3 times faster than gcc's best result. On the pow() loop, Intel's margin
increases--over 4 times. But the biggest margin is the exp() test loop: the
Intel-compiled code is 8 times faster than gcc! I am sure this kind of margin on
transcendentals is what lifts Intel to its impressive performance in BW1D and
TRANSCEND. Hopefully some talented programmer can disassemble Intel's lightning fast
transcendental C calls and mimic them in an open-source fast math library that can be
tightly coupled to gcc. With something like that, I think gcc would be neck-and-neck
with Intel for the best overall performance in these benchmarks.

to jest bardzo ciekawe - intel ma dobrze napisane
wielokroc szybsze funkcje transcendentalne w
szczegolnosci exp i pow ktore zarzynają gcc
(to ze pow jest baaardzo wolny to sam odkrylem jak pisalem prosty raytracer) - nawet
wnioski ze
gdyby nie to to gcc moglby byc podobnie szybki jak
intel (lub prawie)