<?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 There are certainly lots of in Software Tuning, Performance Optimization &amp; Platform Monitoring</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Tuning-Performance/Precision-lost-when-compiled-with-xAVX-or-xHOST/m-p/999751#M3530</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;There are certainly lots of places where things can go wrong.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Do you see a difference in accuracy between these options?&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;UL&gt;
	&lt;LI&gt;-xSSE4.1&lt;/LI&gt;
	&lt;LI&gt;-xSSE4.1 -no-vec&lt;/LI&gt;
	&lt;LI&gt;-xAVX&lt;/LI&gt;
	&lt;LI&gt;-xAVX -no-vec&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;

&lt;P&gt;The third one should be the case that is giving the poor results.&amp;nbsp; The other three cases may help pin down whether the problem is due to vector width, arithmetic reordering, or something else...&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;You might need to augment these with changes to the optimization level (e.g., explicitly using "-O1", "-O2", and "-O3") and adding the "-fp-model strict" option to any versions that give trouble.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2015 18:29:17 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>McCalpinJohn</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-05-15T18:29:17Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Precision lost when compiled with -xAVX or -xHOST</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Tuning-Performance/Precision-lost-when-compiled-with-xAVX-or-xHOST/m-p/999748#M3527</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi all,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;My program output is in double and floating point values when i compile without -xAVX or -xHOST options results are correct but most of the loops aren't getting vectorized but when i use -xAVX or -xHOST option most of loops are getting vectorized and even the performance has been improved but the precision is lost. When I execute same program for a larger dataset this small precision loss is resulting in wrong output. I've even tried -fp-model precise/strict options along with -xHOST but still i'm getting wrong output.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Is it because of AVX vectorization or something else? &lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Sharath kumar&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2015 05:06:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Tuning-Performance/Precision-lost-when-compiled-with-xAVX-or-xHOST/m-p/999748#M3527</guid>
      <dc:creator>Sharath_K_1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-05-13T05:06:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Can you provide more details</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Tuning-Performance/Precision-lost-when-compiled-with-xAVX-or-xHOST/m-p/999749#M3528</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Can you provide more details on precision loss?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2015 08:17:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Tuning-Performance/Precision-lost-when-compiled-with-xAVX-or-xHOST/m-p/999749#M3528</guid>
      <dc:creator>Bernard</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-05-13T08:17:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>I'm not at the liberty of</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Tuning-Performance/Precision-lost-when-compiled-with-xAVX-or-xHOST/m-p/999750#M3529</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I'm not at the liberty of posting the results.So i can only tell you that out of 6 decimal points, difference is shown in last 2 or 3 decimal points. For a larger datasets the difference also gets increased.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2015 10:02:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Tuning-Performance/Precision-lost-when-compiled-with-xAVX-or-xHOST/m-p/999750#M3529</guid>
      <dc:creator>Sharath_K_1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-05-15T10:02:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>There are certainly lots of</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Tuning-Performance/Precision-lost-when-compiled-with-xAVX-or-xHOST/m-p/999751#M3530</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;There are certainly lots of places where things can go wrong.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Do you see a difference in accuracy between these options?&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;UL&gt;
	&lt;LI&gt;-xSSE4.1&lt;/LI&gt;
	&lt;LI&gt;-xSSE4.1 -no-vec&lt;/LI&gt;
	&lt;LI&gt;-xAVX&lt;/LI&gt;
	&lt;LI&gt;-xAVX -no-vec&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;

&lt;P&gt;The third one should be the case that is giving the poor results.&amp;nbsp; The other three cases may help pin down whether the problem is due to vector width, arithmetic reordering, or something else...&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;You might need to augment these with changes to the optimization level (e.g., explicitly using "-O1", "-O2", and "-O3") and adding the "-fp-model strict" option to any versions that give trouble.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2015 18:29:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Tuning-Performance/Precision-lost-when-compiled-with-xAVX-or-xHOST/m-p/999751#M3530</guid>
      <dc:creator>McCalpinJohn</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-05-15T18:29:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

