Re: Intrinsic matmul vs. LAPACK
- From: rusi_pathan <tabrezali@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 18:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
On May 25, 1:34 pm, Brad Weir <briar...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Suppose I have a general matrix and a vector and I want to multiply
them. Does anyone know how the performance of the Fortran 90/95
intrinsics (matmul, dot_product, etc.) compare to the LAPACK routines
for general matrices (_gemv, _nrm2, etc.)? What about if the matrix
is symmetric? I would guess that then the special structure of the
matrix makes the LAPACK routines more efficient.
For small matrices the Matmul intrinsic is fine. For large matrices
(in a serial code) you would want a multithreaded BLAS3 like Intel's
MKL. I dont know if Matmul is multithreaded in any of the compilers.
LAPACK is built on top of BLAS so a faster/multithreaded BLAS would
mean a faster LAPACK.
Note: I generally dont work with large dense matrices.
.
- References:
- Intrinsic matmul vs. LAPACK
- From: Brad Weir
- Intrinsic matmul vs. LAPACK
- Prev by Date: Re: Intrinsic matmul vs. LAPACK
- Next by Date: Re: Generic procedures still involve code duplicaton?
- Previous by thread: Re: Intrinsic matmul vs. LAPACK
- Index(es):