https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/Sparse-blas-matrix-multiplication-speed-vs-memory/m-p/1606576#M36217 <P>I was doing some comparison tests and noticed that a general matrix multiplication function is faster than a sparse blas specific function (cblas_?gemm and mkl_sparse_?_mm). The objective of sparse blas' matrix multiplication functions, at least, is to be less expensive in terms of memory, but not necessarily in terms of execution time, am I right?</P> Thu, 13 Jun 2024 16:56:54 GMT joao-araujo 2024-06-13T16:56:54Z https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/Sparse-blas-matrix-multiplication-speed-vs-memory/m-p/1606576#M36217 <P>I was doing some comparison tests and noticed that a general matrix multiplication function is faster than a sparse blas specific function (cblas_?gemm and mkl_sparse_?_mm). The objective of sparse blas' matrix multiplication functions, at least, is to be less expensive in terms of memory, but not necessarily in terms of execution time, am I right?</P> Thu, 13 Jun 2024 16:56:54 GMT https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/Sparse-blas-matrix-multiplication-speed-vs-memory/m-p/1606576#M36217 joao-araujo 2024-06-13T16:56:54Z https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/Sparse-blas-matrix-multiplication-speed-vs-memory/m-p/1607110#M36218 <P>As an extreme counterexample, consider the outer product of two n-vectors. You may use a general matrix multiply routine to perform this operation, although other routines may be better suited. The general matrix routine need not use more temporary storage than that needed for a single real/double.</P> Sun, 16 Jun 2024 03:38:15 GMT https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/Sparse-blas-matrix-multiplication-speed-vs-memory/m-p/1607110#M36218 mecej4 2024-06-16T03:38:15Z