Who?.
Sir, I am finding your attitude irksome at best. Intel deserves accolades for their chips. I am seriously thinking of building a 6600 quad as my next machine. Intel, and possibly you, deserve to be smug for their achievement. Your 'crowing' and bad-mouthing of the competion I feel shouldn't be done by a representative of Intel on these boards, and reminds me more of a thirteen year old troll. I have filtered your user ID. Trivial, yes, but I prefer to read posts/information from courteous adults. This is not a personal attack but just MY viewpoint. Thank you. john
And if the mods don't want this to remain posted, please delete. Thanks again..j

I appolozige if I shock you, I am just very direct on this subject, because too much BS was spread. I was told that I will be KO by more than 40% by K10, and now we all know what is true and what is false.
People take life changing decision (Buying a new PC) based on what is online, It is pretty important to respect the consumers, and put a reality check into the wave of false claims.

I hope you agree, Sorry if it was too direct.

who?

I for one find your post refreshing and inciteful. I can understand your frustration with the hype that has appeared about AMD's purported progress. Sometimes we need to have thick skins. I've had more than my fair share of mud slung at me and my projects. So I welcome your directness.

... and I'm weary of the propaganda.

....and I look forward to reading every word who? writes! Keep it up. Reading about how Barcelona is in reality is an amazing let down (even at this early stage in its release).

Who?.
Sir, I am finding your attitude irksome at best. Intel deserves accolades for their chips. I am seriously thinking of building a 6600 quad as my next machine. Intel, and possibly you, deserve to be smug for their achievement. Your 'crowing' and bad-mouthing of the competion I feel shouldn't be done by a representative of Intel on these boards, and reminds me more of a thirteen year old troll. I have filtered your user ID. Trivial, yes, but I prefer to read posts/information from courteous adults. This is not a personal attack but just MY viewpoint. Thank you. john
And if the mods don't want this to remain posted, please delete. Thanks again..j

I appolozige if I shock you, I am just very direct on this subject, because too much BS was spread. I was told that I will be KO by more than 40% by K10, and now we all know what is true and what is false.
People take life changing decision (Buying a new PC) based on what is online, It is pretty important to respect the consumers, and put a reality check into the wave of false claims.

I hope you agree, Sorry if it was too direct.

who?

I for one find your post refreshing and inciteful. I can understand your frustration with the hype that has appeared about AMD's purported progress. Sometimes we need to have thick skins. I've had more than my fair share of mud slung at me and my projects. So I welcome your directness.

... and I'm weary of the propaganda.

....and I look forward to reading every word who? writes! Keep it up. Reading about how Barcelona is in reality is an amazing let down (even at this early stage in its release).

... and I would be just as uninterested if an AMD employee were bad-mouthing the Intel parts.

While we're on the subject, where is the magical hyper-optimized SETI app. that Who? has been promising?

---

While we're on the subject, where is the magical hyper-optimized SETI app. that Who? has been promising?

Assuming you were actually interested in an answer to this question, rather than just criticizing, his most recent comment is: message 645690

---

While we're on the subject, where is the magical hyper-optimized SETI app. that Who? has been promising?

Assuming you were actually interested in an answer to this question, rather than just criticizing, his most recent comment is: message 645690

Ah, just a few more weeks of tuning.

---

While we're on the subject, where is the magical hyper-optimized SETI app. that Who? has been promising?

Assuming you were actually interested in an answer to this question, rather than just criticizing, his most recent comment is: message 645690

Ah, just a few more weeks of tuning.

LOL....I like the guy, but I hope he had better luck with that gearbox....

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

They say generals like to fight past wars. Folding@home has passed the petaflops limit due to the CELL processor on Playstation3. Since I am still using an Intel PII Deschutes running SETI, Einstein and QMC I am a little surprised of these Intel vs AMD wars. What about a good RISC chip?
Tullio

---

They say generals like to fight past wars. Folding@home has passed the petaflops limit due to the CELL processor on Playstation3. Since I am still using an Intel PII Deschutes running SETI, Einstein and QMC I am a little surprised of these Intel vs AMD wars. What about a good RISC chip?
Tullio

i am french! don t shoot !

hahhaha

---

who?
Skulltrail D5400XS

So,
Now we know all about who?s coding endeavours, not that it isn't interesting, but it might have deserved it's own thread.

How about going back on topic.
Is anyone running a 'Chickened' Barcy yet? Any OCing going on?

And while on the topic (AMD), what do you guys recon this to be?
Phenom?

/Anton

Edit: Just noted the small eruption of posts just before this one...Calm down guys. Noone's thretening anyone!!

i can tell you what it is, they will try to beat the 3dmark score with a phenom proto and 2 overclock GPU. as soon as they do, i ll do the same with my skulltrail and we will see :) i am ready , hehehehe

i thought it is funny to share.

---

who?
Skulltrail D5400XS

The fight is here.

Since it's release, several people have attached their barcelona systems to the project.

Whenever new equipment is released, there are always those who want it straight away.

If common sense is applied with patience, once things have settled down, the cost drops.

Once the cost from competitors is in the same ballpark, it is down to the individual's choice.

From what I have seen in this & other threads, it seems to me that some people are building systems just to run s@h.

The majority of people build/purchase computers to aid in education/everyday life, i.e., Internet, accounts/word processing etc.

Does it really matter whether they are Intel/AMD, Windows/Linux/OS X?

Most comsumers are cost conscious.

As for myself, just because my systems are AMD & attached does not mean I don't build Intel systems.

I build what the customer wants, & unfortunately, I could not get the Intel customers to have boinc on their systems.

Why are mine AMD? Simple, I got a great deal on the equipment & could not get similar deals with Intel based kit.

My network cost £1,400 whereas had I chosen Intel at the time, it would have cost £1,870. That difference enabled me to build another system for a customer & help reduce the cost of the network. To me that is sound business.

When things have settled down, if barcelona proves too expensive, then my server will be Intel, if not, then AMD.

[Edit] Question answered [/edit]

Hi Everyone. seems to be a problem - is it my end or s@h end?

Since my post (127), the board states 140, but am unable to see them.

The thread is being editted and a bunch of who? related material have been put in another thread....

Hi Everyone. seems to be a problem - is it my end or s@h end?

Since my post (127), the board states 140, but am unable to see them.

The thread is being editted and a bunch of who? related material have been put in another thread....

Thanks, Alinator pipped you to the post.

Regards

PJ

---

While we're on the subject, where is the magical hyper-optimized SETI app. that Who? has been promising?

Assuming you were actually interested in an answer to this question, rather than just criticizing, his most recent comment is: message 645690

Ah, just a few more weeks of tuning.

LOL....I like the guy, but I hope he had better luck with that gearbox....

well, my gearbox is still not in, i am too busy getting my product ready as soon as possible. my personal life and hobbies are far behing for more than a year, people should be able to understand this.
In the mean time, look at the amazing hardware I am leading ... people need to understand that between SETI opti and my product design and tuning, the choice is obvious.
V8 is already dominating BOINC, and SkullT will increase this lead, the optimization for me is the cherryl on the cake, not the cake.

You all understood now?
I am not Intel, and you don t have to blame me for the entire company stuff.
now, if you feel like releasing all your complain on me, well, I can't help you, you are an iD...

Without me, there is NO vectorization in the SETI code, because every body was trying to optimized the FFT, while the critical path was findPulse(), so, stop decreasing my contribution here, and show a little respect too, it is not because I have a blue badge that I do not deserve respect for my past contribution, you could be all looking for a faster FFT ... clear too?

thanks, have a good day.

who?

Without me, there is NO vectorization in the SETI code, because every body was trying to optimized the FFT, while the critical path was findPulse(), so, stop decreasing my contribution here, and show a little respect too, it is not because I have a blue badge that I do not deserve respect for my past contribution, you could be all looking for a faster FFT ... clear too?

You're taking far too much credit for the past year's advances in optimized apps if you make a claim like this. Joe Segur pointed this out last time you made the claim, so I guess it's my turn.

If you're referring to your post in September where you vectorized one of the array-averaging loops, which I'm assuming you are, Ben Herndon responded to it, pointing out that he had something similar long ago, to the point where some of it was already checked into the SETI CVS server at the time of your post. He also tried to open a dialogue with you about your optimization proposals, but I don't see a response from you there or on Simon's forums. If you look in the source code to apps that predate your post, I imagine you'll find that your post is definitely not the first time that that loop has been vectorized.

I don't think any of us have spent time on optimizing the FFT beyond picking the fastest libraries we could find and choosing between in-place and out-of-place transforms where advantageous. Our efforts have mostly been directed elsewhere.

Without me, there is NO vectorization in the SETI code, because every body was trying to optimized the FFT, while the critical path was findPulse(), so, stop decreasing my contribution here, and show a little respect too, it is not because I have a blue badge that I do not deserve respect for my past contribution, you could be all looking for a faster FFT ... clear too?

... and with you, there is one machine running vectorized code?

---

Without me, there is NO vectorization in the SETI code, because every body was trying to optimized the FFT, while the critical path was findPulse(), so, stop decreasing my contribution here, and show a little respect too, it is not because I have a blue badge that I do not deserve respect for my past contribution, you could be all looking for a faster FFT ... clear too?

thanks, have a good day.

who?

Share that love for my P3 too, please.

Yes, no? ;)

---

Without me, there is NO vectorization in the SETI code, because every body was trying to optimized the FFT, while the critical path was findPulse(), so, stop decreasing my contribution here, and show a little respect too, it is not because I have a blue badge that I do not deserve respect for my past contribution, you could be all looking for a faster FFT ... clear too?

You're taking far too much credit for the past year's advances in optimized apps if you make a claim like this. Joe Segur pointed this out last time you made the claim, so I guess it's my turn.

If you're referring to your post in September where you vectorized one of the array-averaging loops, which I'm assuming you are, Ben Herndon responded to it, pointing out that he had something similar long ago, to the point where some of it was already checked into the SETI CVS server at the time of your post. He also tried to open a dialogue with you about your optimization proposals, but I don't see a response from you there or on Simon's forums. If you look in the source code to apps that predate your post, I imagine you'll find that your post is definitely not the first time that that loop has been vectorized.

I don't think any of us have spent time on optimizing the FFT beyond picking the fastest libraries we could find and choosing between in-place and out-of-place transforms where advantageous. Our efforts have mostly been directed elsewhere.

Well, if you were aware of findpulse() being the critical path, it is very strange that you left it the way it was ... come on! it was bunch of float to int and int to float conversion. I don't buy this. I still have a copy of it, you want to me show what you was supposely focusing on optimizing?

May be some of you was aware of it, but none of you ever writen a code like I did, and your today's code , except the array of functions, look like my code in many of the sub-routings, like it or not.

anybody can compare your today's code, with my 1st posting with the intrinsics.

who?

Without me, there is NO vectorization in the SETI code, because every body was trying to optimized the FFT, while the critical path was findPulse(), so, stop decreasing my contribution here, and show a little respect too, it is not because I have a blue badge that I do not deserve respect for my past contribution, you could be all looking for a faster FFT ... clear too?

You're taking far too much credit for the past year's advances in optimized apps if you make a claim like this. Joe Segur pointed this out last time you made the claim, so I guess it's my turn.

If you're referring to your post in September where you vectorized one of the array-averaging loops, which I'm assuming you are, Ben Herndon responded to it, pointing out that he had something similar long ago, to the point where some of it was already checked into the SETI CVS server at the time of your post. He also tried to open a dialogue with you about your optimization proposals, but I don't see a response from you there or on Simon's forums. If you look in the source code to apps that predate your post, I imagine you'll find that your post is definitely not the first time that that loop has been vectorized.

I don't think any of us have spent time on optimizing the FFT beyond picking the fastest libraries we could find and choosing between in-place and out-of-place transforms where advantageous. Our efforts have mostly been directed elsewhere.

And I don't think you try to fall back your optimization in windows build either. Do i need to give a copy of the thread you posted on a mac web site about my vectorized code? (You is the seti MAC group)

who?

Well, if you were aware of findpulse() being the critical path, it is very strange that you left it the way it was ... come on! it was bunch of float to int and int to float conversion. I don't buy this. I still have a copy of it, you want to me show what you was supposely focusing on optimizing?

May be some of you was aware of it, but none of you ever writen a code like I did, and your today's code , except the array of functions, look like my code in many of the sub-routings, like it or not.

anybody can compare your today's code, with my 1st posting with the intrinsics.

This is true. Anyone can compare today's code with your first posting. They can also compare code from August 2006 with your first posting. Those of you who actually download the tarball, go to line 1175 in client/pulsefind.cpp. This is only the first Intel source release (hand-vectorized primarily because I was compiling with GCC at the time); IIRC, gradually-evolving PPC variants of the same functions go as far back as the source tarballs I've made available. Going back even further, you can also compare with Ben Herndon's variants of the same functions, committed to a Sourceforge CVS server nearly three years ago. The intrinsics are obfuscated somewhat by the use of preprocessor defines, but the structure of those loops is the same. Yes, I goofed in that this was an unofficial CVS tree rather than the official project tree, but the point still stands.

Looking back at the discussions that have taken place on Simon's forums, some of which are not publicly-accessible, I can find a few examples of cases where find_pulse and its child functions were identified as being potential hotspots. More interesting is the observation in the second thread that ICC's autovectorizer is easily capable of vectorizing those array-summing loops. True, without the proper #pragma alignment hints, ICC won't pick up that the vector load for the low elements could be done with movaps. Still, in conjunction with the fact that pulse-finding wasn't nearly as big a hotspot in the pre-Enhanced days, this goes a long way towards explaining why optimizers were spending more time on less easily-autovectorizable functions prior to your post.

And I don't think you try to fall back your optimization in windows build either. Do i need to give a copy of the thread you posted on a mac web site about my vectorized code? (You is the seti MAC group)

What exactly are you asking here? I'm assuming that you're referring to the Team MacNN forums, since that's the only other place I post. I looked through the threads I've posted in, and I see two mentions of your work (only one of which I made), both concerning the structure-of-structure FFT optimizations you mentioned in August 2006. Am I missing something?