The MKL and IPP libraries will perform (nearly) as well on AMD machines. My guess is that TBB will also run just fine on AMD boxes. If I had to suggest a technology that would be beneficial and useful to both, it would be to master the OpenMP libraries. The Intel compiler with the OpenMP extensions is stunningly fast and works with AMD chips also.
Only worth it if you are specifically interested in building something like Video games, Operating systems, database servers, or virtualization software. In other words: if you have a segment where you care enough about performance to take the time to do it (and do it right) in assembler. The same is true for Intel.
If your company sells packages of just Intel Servers with your software, then you shouldn't bother learning the AMD approach. But if you're going to have to offer software for both (or many) different platforms, then it might be worth looking into the different technologies. It will be very difficult to create the wrappers for the hardware-specific libraries. (Especially since threading is involved.)
And you definitely don't want to write completely separate implementation for each hardware configuration. In fact, if your software is to be consumed by a generic user, then you may want to abandon the Intel technology, and use standard threading techniques. I don't mean to be discouraging, but I believe that the Intel threading libraries are a bit ahead of their time for all intents and purposes.
发布评论
评论（3）
MKL 和 IPP 库在 AMD 机器上的性能（几乎）一样好。 我的猜测是 TBB 在 AMD 机器上也能正常运行。 如果我必须建议一项对双方都有利且有用的技术，那就是掌握 OpenMP 库。 带有 OpenMP 扩展的 Intel 编译器速度惊人，并且还可以与 AMD 芯片配合使用。
The MKL and IPP libraries will perform (nearly) as well on AMD machines. My guess is that TBB will also run just fine on AMD boxes. If I had to suggest a technology that would be beneficial and useful to both, it would be to master the OpenMP libraries. The Intel compiler with the OpenMP extensions is stunningly fast and works with AMD chips also.
仅当您对构建视频游戏、操作系统、数据库服务器或虚拟化软件等内容特别感兴趣时才值得。 换句话说：如果您有一个非常关心性能的部分，需要花时间在汇编程序中完成（并正确完成）。 对于英特尔来说也是如此。
Only worth it if you are specifically interested in building something like Video games, Operating systems, database servers, or virtualization software. In other words: if you have a segment where you care enough about performance to take the time to do it (and do it right) in assembler. The same is true for Intel.
如果您的公司只销售包含英特尔服务器和软件的软件包，那么您就不必费心去学习 AMD 方法。 但是，如果您必须为两个（或多个）不同平台提供软件，那么可能值得研究不同的技术。 为特定于硬件的库创建包装器将非常困难。 （特别是因为涉及线程。）
并且您绝对不想为每个硬件配置编写完全独立的实现。 事实上，如果您的软件是由一般用户使用，那么您可能想要放弃英特尔技术，而使用标准线程技术。 我并不是要泄气，但我相信英特尔线程库在所有意图和目的上都有点超前于时代。
If your company sells packages of just Intel Servers with your software, then you shouldn't bother learning the AMD approach. But if you're going to have to offer software for both (or many) different platforms, then it might be worth looking into the different technologies. It will be very difficult to create the wrappers for the hardware-specific libraries. (Especially since threading is involved.)
And you definitely don't want to write completely separate implementation for each hardware configuration. In fact, if your software is to be consumed by a generic user, then you may want to abandon the Intel technology, and use standard threading techniques. I don't mean to be discouraging, but I believe that the Intel threading libraries are a bit ahead of their time for all intents and purposes.