<?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: vesion 6.0.1 slower than 5.1  in Intel® Integrated Performance Primitives</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/vesion-6-0-1-slower-than-5-1/m-p/905083#M13325</link>
    <description>&lt;DIV style="margin:0px;"&gt;
&lt;DIV id="quote_reply" style="margin-top: 5px; width: 100%;"&gt;
&lt;DIV style="margin-left:2px;margin-right:2px;"&gt;Quoting - &lt;A href="https://community.intel.com/en-us/profile/414849"&gt;delalaym&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;DIV style="background-color:#E5E5E5; padding:5px;border: 1px; border-style: inset;margin-left:2px;margin-right:2px;"&gt;&lt;EM&gt;
&lt;DIV style="margin:0px;"&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;Hi,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I have attached a file. It contains a run for the ippsMulC_32s_Sfs function on both 5.1 and 6.0.1. It seems like the 6.0.1 is slower... &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;thanks.&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;One possible difference could be if you're statically linking and using the threading layer in 6.0.1 (was not available in 5.1). Are you using the same linking/threading model in both tests?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Peter&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:13:41 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>pvonkaenel</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2009-02-25T13:13:41Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>vesion 6.0.1 slower than 5.1</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/vesion-6-0-1-slower-than-5-1/m-p/905079#M13321</link>
      <description>Hello,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;We were using the 5.1 version on our application. In that library, as far as I know, there was no optimization for the Core 2 Duo. &lt;BR /&gt;We are now trying the 6.0.1 version and it is &lt;EM&gt;slower&lt;/EM&gt; then the 5.1 even though he now detects that I have a Core 2 Duo... How is that possible? The function that we use that takes the most CPU is : IppsMulc_32s_sfs &lt;BR /&gt;I've done also the performance test with ps_ipps.exe on both 5.1 and 6.0.1 and effectively, it sometimes takes longer on 6.0.1... &lt;BR /&gt;Any Idea?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:39:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/vesion-6-0-1-slower-than-5-1/m-p/905079#M13321</guid>
      <dc:creator>delalaym</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-02-13T13:39:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: vesion 6.0.1 slower than 5.1</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/vesion-6-0-1-slower-than-5-1/m-p/905080#M13322</link>
      <description>&lt;DIV style="margin:0px;"&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;How did you test the performance? Please note it may depend on the data you use. For example supplying NANs you will definetely drop the performance down.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Vladimir</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:15:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/vesion-6-0-1-slower-than-5-1/m-p/905080#M13322</guid>
      <dc:creator>Vladimir_Dudnik</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-02-16T19:15:41Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: vesion 6.0.1 slower than 5.1</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/vesion-6-0-1-slower-than-5-1/m-p/905081#M13323</link>
      <description>&lt;DIV style="margin:0px;"&gt;
&lt;DIV id="quote_reply" style="width: 100%; margin-top: 5px;"&gt;
&lt;DIV style="margin-left:2px;margin-right:2px;"&gt;Quoting - &lt;A href="https://community.intel.com/en-us/profile/414849"&gt;delalaym&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;DIV style="background-color:#E5E5E5; padding:5px;border: 1px; border-style: inset;margin-left:2px;margin-right:2px;"&gt;&lt;EM&gt;Hello,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;We were using the 5.1 version on our application. In that library, as far as I know, there was no optimization for the Core 2 Duo. &lt;BR /&gt;We are now trying the 6.0.1 version and it is &lt;EM&gt;slower&lt;/EM&gt; then the 5.1 even though he now detects that I have a Core 2 Duo... How is that possible? The function that we use that takes the most CPU is : IppsMulc_32s_sfs &lt;BR /&gt;I've done also the performance test with ps_ipps.exe on both 5.1 and 6.0.1 and effectively, it sometimes takes longer on 6.0.1... &lt;BR /&gt;Any Idea?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks.&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;Can you verify that what Intel IPP optimized libraries are loaded respectively from versions 5.1 and 6.0.1 on a Core 2 Duo? A simple way is to run ps_ipps.exe from /tools/perfsys from 5.1 and 6.0.1 folder and tell us what the outputs from first several lines, the data could help us understand the IPP optimized code used in these 2 versions.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks,&lt;BR /&gt;Ying &lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:16:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/vesion-6-0-1-slower-than-5-1/m-p/905081#M13323</guid>
      <dc:creator>Ying_S_Intel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-02-18T00:16:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: vesion 6.0.1 slower than 5.1</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/vesion-6-0-1-slower-than-5-1/m-p/905082#M13324</link>
      <description>&lt;DIV style="margin:0px;"&gt;
&lt;DIV id="quote_reply" style="margin-top: 5px; width: 100%;"&gt;
&lt;DIV style="margin-left:2px;margin-right:2px;"&gt;Quoting - &lt;A href="https://community.intel.com/en-us/profile/336671"&gt;YING S (Intel)&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;DIV style="background-color:#E5E5E5; padding:5px;border: 1px; border-style: inset;margin-left:2px;margin-right:2px;"&gt;&lt;EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Can you verify that what Intel IPP optimized libraries are loaded respectively from versions 5.1 and 6.0.1 on a Core 2 Duo? A simple way is to run ps_ipps.exe from /tools/perfsys from 5.1 and 6.0.1 folder and tell us what the outputs from first several lines, the data could help us understand the IPP optimized code used in these 2 versions.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks,&lt;BR /&gt;Ying &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;Hi,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I have attached a file. It contains a run for the ippsMulC_32s_Sfs function on both 5.1 and 6.0.1. It seems like the 6.0.1 is slower... &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;thanks.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:19:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/vesion-6-0-1-slower-than-5-1/m-p/905082#M13324</guid>
      <dc:creator>delalaym</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-02-24T19:19:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: vesion 6.0.1 slower than 5.1</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/vesion-6-0-1-slower-than-5-1/m-p/905083#M13325</link>
      <description>&lt;DIV style="margin:0px;"&gt;
&lt;DIV id="quote_reply" style="margin-top: 5px; width: 100%;"&gt;
&lt;DIV style="margin-left:2px;margin-right:2px;"&gt;Quoting - &lt;A href="https://community.intel.com/en-us/profile/414849"&gt;delalaym&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;DIV style="background-color:#E5E5E5; padding:5px;border: 1px; border-style: inset;margin-left:2px;margin-right:2px;"&gt;&lt;EM&gt;
&lt;DIV style="margin:0px;"&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;Hi,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I have attached a file. It contains a run for the ippsMulC_32s_Sfs function on both 5.1 and 6.0.1. It seems like the 6.0.1 is slower... &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;thanks.&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;One possible difference could be if you're statically linking and using the threading layer in 6.0.1 (was not available in 5.1). Are you using the same linking/threading model in both tests?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Peter&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:13:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/vesion-6-0-1-slower-than-5-1/m-p/905083#M13325</guid>
      <dc:creator>pvonkaenel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-02-25T13:13:41Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: vesion 6.0.1 slower than 5.1</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/vesion-6-0-1-slower-than-5-1/m-p/905084#M13326</link>
      <description>&lt;DIV style="margin:0px;"&gt;
&lt;DIV id="quote_reply" style="width: 100%; margin-top: 5px;"&gt;
&lt;DIV style="margin-left:2px;margin-right:2px;"&gt;Quoting - &lt;A href="https://community.intel.com/en-us/profile/414649"&gt;pvonkaenel&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;DIV style="background-color:#E5E5E5; padding:5px;border: 1px; border-style: inset;margin-left:2px;margin-right:2px;"&gt;&lt;EM&gt;
&lt;DIV style="margin:0px;"&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;One possible difference could be if you're statically linking and using the threading layer in 6.0.1 (was not available in 5.1). Are you using the same linking/threading model in both tests?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Peter&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;Yes, I am using the same thing... &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Marc-Andre&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:05:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/vesion-6-0-1-slower-than-5-1/m-p/905084#M13326</guid>
      <dc:creator>delalaym</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-02-26T12:05:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: vesion 6.0.1 slower than 5.1</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/vesion-6-0-1-slower-than-5-1/m-p/905085#M13327</link>
      <description>&lt;DIV style="margin:0px;"&gt;
&lt;DIV id="quote_reply" style="margin-top: 5px; width: 100%;"&gt;
&lt;DIV style="margin-left:2px;margin-right:2px;"&gt;Quoting - &lt;A href="https://community.intel.com/en-us/profile/414849"&gt;delalaym&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;DIV style="background-color:#E5E5E5; padding:5px;border: 1px; border-style: inset;margin-left:2px;margin-right:2px;"&gt;&lt;EM&gt;
&lt;DIV style="margin:0px;"&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;Yes, I am using the same thing... &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Marc-Andre&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;Since you have pretty good documentation about the slowdown, and it looks like you might even have a timing application that demopnstrates it, you might want to create an Issue in Premier support. I found a similar slowdown in the template matching migrating from IPP 4.1.3 to 5.? for a certain CPU. I submitted the information and they were able to fix the problem.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Peter&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:19:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/vesion-6-0-1-slower-than-5-1/m-p/905085#M13327</guid>
      <dc:creator>pvonkaenel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-02-26T12:19:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

