Unfortunately, due to the complexity and specialized nature of AVX-512, such optimizations are typically reserved for performance-critical applications and require expertise in low-level programming and processor microarchitecture.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ganymede@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

nice.

can usually get a pretty good performance increase with hand writing asm where appropriate.

don't know if its a coincidence, but i've never seen someone who's good at writing assembly say that its never useful.

[–] four@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

To be fair, people who don't find assembly useful probably wouldn't get good at writing assembly

[–] ganymede@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

for sure, its perfectly reasonable to say "this tool isn't useful for me"

its another thing to say "this tool isn't useful for anyone"

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Though you'd get the same speedup if you used SIMD intrinsics. This is just comparing non-SIMD to SIMD.

[–] ganymede@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

from the article it's not clear what the performance boost is relative to intrinsics (its extremely unlikely to be anything close to 94x lol), its not even clear from the article if the avx2 implementation they benchmarked against was instrinsics or handwritten either. in some cases avx2 seems to slightly outperform avx-512 in their implementation

there's also so many different ways to break a problem down that i'm not sure this is an ideal showcase, at least without more information.

to be fair to the presenters they may not be the ones making the specific flavour of hype that the article writers are.