1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Re: VTune Event based sampling and Athlon XP

Discussion in 'Intel' started by Kevin G. Rhoads, Jul 29, 2003.

  1. VTune is made by Intel, the Athlon processor is made by
    *gasp* a competitor. What do you think?
    Kevin G. Rhoads, Jul 29, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Kevin G. Rhoads

    idave Guest

    Just about everything intel does to advance their own platforms helps AMD
    already (compilers, platform design, etc.). I bet that if you use Vtune on
    software written on and Intel system it will improve the performance on an
    AMD system as well (maybe not as much though).

    "David Schwartz" <> wrote in message
    news:bg74ke$vf0$...
    >
    > "Kevin G. Rhoads" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > > VTune is made by Intel, the Athlon processor is made by
    > > *gasp* a competitor. What do you think?

    >
    > Intel wants to sell VTune. VTune is more expensive than almost any
    > single Intel CPU. It would make more sense for them to support their
    > competitor's CPUs to sell more copies of VTune.
    >
    > DS
    >
    >
    >
    idave, Jul 30, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Kevin G. Rhoads

    Brent Guest

    "David Schwartz" <> wrote:
    > "Kevin G. Rhoads" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > > VTune is made by Intel, the Athlon processor is made by
    > > *gasp* a competitor. What do you think?

    >
    > Intel wants to sell VTune. VTune is more expensive than almost any
    > single Intel CPU. It would make more sense for them to support their
    > competitor's CPUs to sell more copies of VTune.
    >
    > DS


    If I were in charge of Intel, I'd be giving away VTune because there's a lot
    more people who buy CPUs than there are who buy, or even use, development
    software.

    It's in Intel's interests to have all software written running exceedingly
    well on their CPUs and.. not so well on those made by their compeditors.
    With all other things being equal, given a choice between an Intel cpu and a
    comparitable AMD cpu which would you choose knowing that your favorite
    software will run significantly faster on the Intel cpu?

    But if you can get developers to pay for software which helps your company
    sell more CPUs... all the better. ;/

    regards,
    -Brent
    doomsday AT optusnet DOT com DOT au
    Brent, Jul 30, 2003
    #3
  4. "Brent" <> wrote in message
    news:3f27f105$0$31924$...

    > If I were in charge of Intel, I'd be giving away VTune because there's a

    lot
    > more people who buy CPUs than there are who buy, or even use, development
    > software.


    However, Intel doesn't give away VTune, they charge quite a bit for it.
    This suggests that your interpretation of Intel's interests is wrong. You
    don't think Intel's management is stupid, do you?

    > It's in Intel's interests to have all software written running exceedingly
    > well on their CPUs and.. not so well on those made by their compeditors.


    That's certainly true. The CPU market is much larger than the
    performance tuner market.

    > With all other things being equal, given a choice between an Intel cpu and

    a
    > comparitable AMD cpu which would you choose knowing that your favorite
    > software will run significantly faster on the Intel cpu?


    Except that 90% of what you do with VTune helps AMD CPUs too. Intel is
    just trying to eliminate clumsy coding in a market that it controls most of.

    > But if you can get developers to pay for software which helps your company
    > sell more CPUs... all the better. ;/


    Is it better? Doesn't it mean fewer people will performance tune their
    programs for Intel CPUs? And doesn't it leave AMD room for people who have
    AMD CPUs to use only an AMD performance tuner?

    I'm afraid your analysis leads to inconsistencies.

    Put it this way. Assume that VTune only (or mostly) tells you about
    things that cause performance problems on Intel CPUs. And assume that there
    are far more users than devlopers. Why should Intel particularly care what
    processors developers use? Wouldn't they rather developers with AMD CPUs
    could still optimize code to run better on Intel CPUS?

    DS
    David Schwartz, Jul 30, 2003
    #4
  5. Kevin G. Rhoads

    Brent Guest

    "David Schwartz" <> wrote in message
    news:bg9cc7$94g$...
    >
    > "Brent" <> wrote in message
    > news:3f27f105$0$31924$...
    >
    > > If I were in charge of Intel, I'd be giving away VTune because there's a

    > lot
    > > more people who buy CPUs than there are who buy, or even use,

    development
    > > software.

    >
    > However, Intel doesn't give away VTune, they charge quite a bit for

    it.
    > This suggests that your interpretation of Intel's interests is wrong.


    Or that I'm not particularly good managerial material.

    > You
    > don't think Intel's management is stupid, do you?


    Not in the slightest. Intel's primary product is CPUs, but if they can make
    a bit of money on the side by selling software which helps them maintain, or
    even increase, their market share, it makes sense to do so. And developers
    will (obviously :)) pay for it because it'll give them an edge over their
    compeditor's unoptimized software. IMO, this is where my managerial
    failings show. It makes sence to, as far as possible, force developers to
    choose an expensive development suite for either Intel or AMD, not both as
    the case would be if both VTune and CodeAnalyst were free. As a
    professional developer it's logical to optimize for the vast majority of
    one's potential customers.

    > > It's in Intel's interests to have all software written running

    exceedingly
    > > well on their CPUs and.. not so well on those made by their compeditors.

    >
    > That's certainly true. The CPU market is much larger than the
    > performance tuner market.
    >
    > > With all other things being equal, given a choice between an Intel cpu

    and
    > a
    > > comparitable AMD cpu which would you choose knowing that your favorite
    > > software will run significantly faster on the Intel cpu?

    >
    > Except that 90% of what you do with VTune helps AMD CPUs too. Intel is
    > just trying to eliminate clumsy coding in a market that it controls most

    of.

    Fair enough, both have some optimization rules in common. But where they
    differ it'll benefit Intel CPUs over AMD, and thus provides a net benefit to
    Intel.

    > > But if you can get developers to pay for software which helps your

    company
    > > sell more CPUs... all the better. ;/

    >
    > Is it better?


    It's better to sell product A and product B rather than just A or B. It's
    "better" for Intel that way.

    > Doesn't it mean fewer people will performance tune their
    > programs for Intel CPUs?


    Overall, yes.

    > And doesn't it leave AMD room for people who have
    > AMD CPUs to use only an AMD performance tuner?


    Sure, but programmers using AMD CPUs to optimize for people using AMD CPUs
    are in a minority. Someone who writes a comparitable program specifically
    optimized for Intel CPUs will, all other things being equal, have a larger
    market. In software, market share tends to reinforce itself.

    > I'm afraid your analysis leads to inconsistencies.


    I honestly don't believe it does, but entirely respect your right to
    disagree. I can't prove (till I get my ESP software working ;)) that my
    cynical take is more accurate than yours. You're right when you say that
    performance tuning software helps improve the overall standard of software
    written, but don't believe that either Intel or AMD are doing it for
    altruistic reasons.

    > Put it this way. Assume that VTune only (or mostly) tells you about
    > things that cause performance problems on Intel CPUs. And assume that

    there
    > are far more users than devlopers. Why should Intel particularly care what
    > processors developers use?


    IMO, in the grand scheme of things... they don't.

    It might be worth mentioning that any software which I write, if it's
    optimized at all, is optimized towards whichever machine I currently own.
    But then, I don't write software for a living so it doesn't serve as a
    particularly relevent example unless I happen to write the next killer app
    which everyone just has to have. Don't hold your breath ;) Even so, if I'm
    representative of hobby programmers it'd be marginally beneficial for any
    given CPU manufacturer to corner the market... just in case.

    > Wouldn't they rather developers with AMD CPUs
    > could still optimize code to run better on Intel CPUS?


    Yes, but not at the cost of giving developers the choice to optimize for
    both AMD and Intel CPUs, and giving users of said software a choice over
    which CPU they'll buy to get their software to run best.

    Intel has the larger market share. The situation where you can only use
    development software made by company X on CPUs made by company X, to
    performance tune software for CPU made by company X has got to benefit the
    company who already has the larger market share to begin with.

    regards,
    -Brent
    doomsday AT optusnet DOT com DOT au
    Brent, Jul 31, 2003
    #5
  6. "Brent" <> wrote in message
    news:3f2945ed$0$3865$...

    > Intel has the larger market share. The situation where you can only use
    > development software made by company X on CPUs made by company X, to
    > performance tune software for CPU made by company X has got to benefit the
    > company who already has the larger market share to begin with.


    Except the only difference between the two scenarios is that if VTune
    doesn't run on AMD CPUs, developers using AMD CPUs can't make software run
    better on Intel CPUs.

    This might mean a few more developers buy Intel CPUs, but that's
    negligible. What it does mean is that some software won't run as well on
    Intel CPUs, and that's not negligible.

    DS
    David Schwartz, Jul 31, 2003
    #6
  7. "Brent" <> wrote in message
    news:3f2945ed$0$3865$...
    >
    > "David Schwartz" <> wrote in message
    > news:bg9cc7$94g$...

    <snip>
    > > You
    > > don't think Intel's management is stupid, do you?

    >
    > Not in the slightest. Intel's primary product is CPUs, but if they can

    make
    > a bit of money on the side by selling software which helps them maintain,

    or
    > even increase, their market share, it makes sense to do so. And

    developers
    > will (obviously :)) pay for it because it'll give them an edge over their
    > compeditor's unoptimized software. IMO, this is where my managerial
    > failings show. It makes sence to, as far as possible, force developers to
    > choose an expensive development suite for either Intel or AMD, not both as
    > the case would be if both VTune and CodeAnalyst were free. As a
    > professional developer it's logical to optimize for the vast majority of
    > one's potential customers.


    Note that CodeAnalyst is free, as is the recently-released AMD math library
    (in the case of Intel, last time I checked both were quite expensive).

    <snip>
    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
    Michael Brown, Aug 1, 2003
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Shuttie
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    332
    Shuttie
    Jul 29, 2003
  2. jacob navia
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,199
    juergen wurth
    Jul 31, 2003
  3. Michael Brown
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    427
    michael portnoy
    Jul 31, 2003
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    367
  5. Bob
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    379
Loading...

Share This Page