<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: /QaxW versus /QaxN in Intel® Fortran Compiler</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/QaxW-versus-QaxN/m-p/866728#M70946</link>
    <description>As Steve pointed out, there is a possibility /QaxN will produce better optimized code in the SSE2 path for Intel CPUs. If you want to run exclusively on CPUs which support SSE2, including AMD CPUs, you would prefer /QxW. For running exclusively on SSE3, if you see an advantage in including SSE3 instructions, you could use /QxO.&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:13:56 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>TimP</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2008-01-14T14:13:56Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>/QaxW versus /QaxN</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/QaxW-versus-QaxN/m-p/866727#M70945</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello!&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Could anybody tell me what is the difference between /QaxW and /QaxN options?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The documentation states the following:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;for /QaxW: Can generate specialized code paths for SSE2 and SSE instructions for Intel processors, and it can optimize for Intel Pentium 4 processors and Intel Xeon processors with SSE2.&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;for /QaxN: Can generate specialized code paths for SSE2 and SSE instructions for Intel processors, and it can optimize for Pentium 4 processors and Intel Xeon processors with SSE2.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thank you for your time.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Kind regards,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Daniel.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:21:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/QaxW-versus-QaxN/m-p/866727#M70945</guid>
      <dc:creator>Ilie__Daniel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-01-14T12:21:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: /QaxW versus /QaxN</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/QaxW-versus-QaxN/m-p/866728#M70946</link>
      <description>As Steve pointed out, there is a possibility /QaxN will produce better optimized code in the SSE2 path for Intel CPUs. If you want to run exclusively on CPUs which support SSE2, including AMD CPUs, you would prefer /QxW. For running exclusively on SSE3, if you see an advantage in including SSE3 instructions, you could use /QxO.&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:13:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/QaxW-versus-QaxN/m-p/866728#M70946</guid>
      <dc:creator>TimP</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-01-14T14:13:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: /QaxW versus /QaxN</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/QaxW-versus-QaxN/m-p/866729#M70947</link>
      <description>Tim, I don't believe that to be the case. As far as I know, AMD processors will always take the "generic" path when a /Qax option is used. You can set this generic path to be SSE2 by also using /QxW, or SSE3 with /QxO.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;The difference between W and N is that N requires Intel CPUs and enables some additional optimzations. There's no point in using /QaxW - you may as well use /QaxN.&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:47:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/QaxW-versus-QaxN/m-p/866729#M70947</guid>
      <dc:creator>Steven_L_Intel1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-01-14T15:47:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

