- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Hi,

I'm having different results in floating point operations in my algorithms depending on the machine that is being executed. Same architecture (x64), same binaries, but not same processor. It also occurs with /debug:full, /Qfp-speculation:off, /fp:strict...

NOT using BLAS, LAPACK, any external library or random data. Only floating point instructions.

Is this normal? Is it possible to produce reproducible results?

Thanks in advance!

Intel C++ Compiler 12.1 update 258

Link Copied

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

One would suspect programming faults, such as uninitialized data or array bounds violations. Use of options such as /fp:source /Qimf-arch-consistency:true /arch:SSE3 would avoid differences among various CPU brands, once you have resolved such faults.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

**uninitialized data**or

**array bounds violations**... The user doesn't have these cases ( from my point of view... ) because he gets some results. Anyway, let's see if he will provide some results for review. PS: I really miss the

**Preview Post**feature of the old ISN website...

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Is the result of an iterative method that computes hundred of millions times some instructions. i.e.:

------

t=difx1**d *difx[i+m];*

dd=(c[i+1]-d)/(t-c[i+1]);

d=c[i+1]*dd;

c=t*dd;

-------

All are double operations. On each iteration I compare the error with a thresold (order 10^-3= and I decide whether to continue or not. So it is not easy to show results (too many output data)

In that case, this could be just an inestable algorithm? How can I do it better? Using more precission?

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

**long double**/ 80-bit precision ) needs to be used. Also, regarding applications of

**long double**take a look at these threads: Forum topic:

**Mathimf and Windows**Web-link: software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/357759 Forum topic:

**Support of Extended or Quad IEEE FP formats**Web-link: software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/358472 Forum topic:

**Using 'long double' in Parallel Studio?**Web-link: software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/266290 Forum topic:

**Why function printf does not support long double?**Web-link: software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/372720

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

**Mixing of Floating-Point Types ( MFPT ) when performing calculations. Does it improve accuracy?**Web-link: software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/361134 Results of a real test provided in the thread.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Computation using irrational numbers mostly produce irrational results. Double precision floating point uses 52 bits for mantissa with and implied 1 (53 bits of precision for fraction). Some fractional numbers cannot be exactly represented using a finite number of bits (some whole cannot either). A good example of this is the binary value of the decimal 0.1, this is 0.1100110011001100... This is an infinite repeating fraction. In DP FP this fraction will be left shifted by 1 bit and binary exponent diminished by 1 (to account for the shift). the 1. is removed as excepting for 0 and denormalized numbers, it will always be 1. this leave a binary fraction of:

[cpp]

1001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100... (infinite irrational)

0000000001111111111222222222233333333334444444444555 (10's bit counter)

1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012 (1's bit counter)

1001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011010 (rounded to 52 bits)

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000110011001100... (+error)

[/cpp]

Depending on how and how often you manipulate these numbers, the error grows. Using longer floating point formats postpone the error from creaping into the results beyond acceptible levels, but will not eliminate it from happening. Programmers can work around these errors if need be but in many cases the error is within an acceptible range and can be ignored.

Even before the days of binary computers, numerical computations had to take into consideration error in values. SIN, COS, LN tables were published to finite number of places.

Jim Dempsey

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

As Jim said usage of irrational numbers and also real numbers witch are not exactly representable by binary number encoding can lead tonaccumulation of the errors related to the accuracy of the final result.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Hi,

We are testing our algorithms with long double type data in terms of accuracy and times. A priori, we think the problem is solved. Would you say that operations with long double are much heavier in time?

I understand your explanations, but I still dont see why results changes depending on the machine. i.e. Intel Xeon and Core Duo with same binaries.

Thanks

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

>>>but I still dont see why results changes depending on the machine. i.e. Intel Xeon and Core Duo with same binaries.>>>

Maybe this is due to various microcode and/or hardware implementation of the rounding algorithms.As Tim said there are also programming errors and there is also some possibility of the hardware errors which could manifest themselves as a loss of accurracy.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

The article at http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/consistency-of-floating-point-results-using-the-intel-compi... may provide some additional insights.

--mark

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

@mark-sabahi

It was a very interesting article.Thanks for link.

- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page