<?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 MKL 2D fft's  vs.  FFTW? in Intel® oneAPI Math Kernel Library</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/MKL-2D-fft-s-vs-FFTW/m-p/967589#M16329</link>
    <description>&lt;DIV&gt;The MKL 2D fft's don't seem that fast for non-powers of 2. They aren'tfaster than fftw 3.0 . The benchmark results displayed on the MKL web page are for the itanium processor. Does anyone have experience with the 32 bit or EM64T processors? &lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;DIV&gt;Also, is there a way of determining what the preferred non-power of 2 lengths for the MKL ffts are? &lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;DIV&gt;Doing non-power of 2 lengths are crucial for ffts. If I have a fft that is 20% slower, but can do length 140, or 145, that is much better than having to go up to length 256. &lt;/DIV&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2005 03:03:42 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>c-stork</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2005-10-22T03:03:42Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>MKL 2D fft's  vs.  FFTW?</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/MKL-2D-fft-s-vs-FFTW/m-p/967589#M16329</link>
      <description>&lt;DIV&gt;The MKL 2D fft's don't seem that fast for non-powers of 2. They aren'tfaster than fftw 3.0 . The benchmark results displayed on the MKL web page are for the itanium processor. Does anyone have experience with the 32 bit or EM64T processors? &lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;DIV&gt;Also, is there a way of determining what the preferred non-power of 2 lengths for the MKL ffts are? &lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;DIV&gt;Doing non-power of 2 lengths are crucial for ffts. If I have a fft that is 20% slower, but can do length 140, or 145, that is much better than having to go up to length 256. &lt;/DIV&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2005 03:03:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/MKL-2D-fft-s-vs-FFTW/m-p/967589#M16329</guid>
      <dc:creator>c-stork</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2005-10-22T03:03:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: MKL 2D fft's  vs.  FFTW?</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/MKL-2D-fft-s-vs-FFTW/m-p/967590#M16330</link>
      <description>&lt;DIV&gt;I am not certain which version of MKL you are using. In MKL 8.0 we added radix 7 and 11 kernels. We have had radix 2, 3, and 5. One of your transforms - 140 - should profit from the radix 7 transform. The second transform - 145 - should be zero-filled to size 150.&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;DIV&gt;Bruce&lt;/DIV&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2005 14:51:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/MKL-2D-fft-s-vs-FFTW/m-p/967590#M16330</guid>
      <dc:creator>Intel_C_Intel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2005-11-01T14:51:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

