Wednesday, April 1st 2020

AMD Processors No Longer Crippled with Latest MATLAB MKL Update

by
btarunr
 Discuss (42 Comments)
MATLAB received an update that no longer cripples users of AMD processors. Back in November 2019, there was quite some controversy when it emerged that MATLAB, a popular computing platform popular with engineering firms, universities, and research institutes, wasn't working optimally with AMD processors. Specifically, the suite's Intel MKL (math kernel library) component was designed such that if it didn't recognize the "GenuineIntel" CPUID string, it would disable fast AVX2 code-paths and fall back to SSE. This would inflict anywhere between 20-300 percent performance penalties on "AuthenticAMD" processors.

Reddit user Nedflanders1976 developed a tweak back in November, which spoofs MKL into thinking AMD processors are "GenuineIntel," enabling it to leverage modern instruction sets such as SSE4, AVX, and AVX2. AMD processors have been supporting SSE4 and AVX since its 2011 FX-series, and AVX2 since 2017 Ryzen. With the latest R2020a version, MATLAB automatically enables AVX2 execution on AMD processors that support the instruction set. A quick set of tests by ExtremeTech confirms that the update does indeed leverage the faster code-path by default, with Ryzen Threadripper 3960X and 3970X gaining over 200% performance and beating the Core i9-10980XE (something that needed the Nedflanders1976 tweak earlier).
Sources: Nedflanders1976 (Reddit), ExtremeTech

Related News

Add your own comment

42 Comments on AMD Processors No Longer Crippled with Latest MATLAB MKL Update

#26
DeathtoGnomes
i seriously doubt MATLAB would not have EVER fixed the issue if it werent for the big stink over this. I do believe they knew of the issue all along, so it wasnt laziness that delayed pushing what could have been a hotfix into the regular update schedule. Its easier to assume Intel was the real cause, but no matter what direction the finger pointing is, its the almighty dollar that most corporate decisions are based on, and corrupt business practices.
Posted on Reply
#27
Berfs1
notbI try not to spend much time reading his posts.
Seems like you like to ignore context...
Posted on Reply
#28
Daven
notbEvery fix ever done could have happened earlier. The whole point of fixing issues is that someone has to notice the issue first.
For better part of a decade no one used AMD CPUs for Matlab. Simple as that.

Ad BTW: keep that in mind next time you'll write a post about how great ARM is and how easy it will be to migrate form x86.
Did you just say that no one in the whole world, not one single person, used MATLAB with AMD processors for almost a decade?
Posted on Reply
#29
Kokorniokos
Good. Time for Adobe to fix their crippled premiere too.
Posted on Reply
#30
Cryio
So MATLAB has been crippling AMD CPUs for close to a decade, given FX CPUs could've benefited from SSE4 and AVX acceleration from 9 years ago.

Wow.
Posted on Reply
#31
TheGuruStud
CryioSo MATLAB has been crippling AMD CPUs for close to a decade, given FX CPUs could've benefited from SSE4 and AVX acceleration from 9 years ago.

Wow.
Intel's hands are quite choking...
Posted on Reply
#32
jbgtly
TheGuruStudIntel's hands are quite choking...
And their $ is very enticing. If anyone here really thinks Intel wasn't paying Matlab to do this, then you are very naive about how big businesses work. Especially evil ones like Intel that have been doing stuff like this since day 1.
Posted on Reply
#33
mtcn77
jbgtlyAnd their $ is very enticing. If anyone here really thinks Intel wasn't paying Matlab to do this, then you are very naive about how big businesses work. Especially evil ones like Intel that have been doing stuff like this since day 1.
I need to see it in context with IBM. Both make cpus, both make 5.2+ GHz cpus the norm. Yet, one is the big blue which apple to microsoft hate, the other non-apple and non-microsoft hate. I cannot see it any different from business as usual. It is the fruit bearing tree that is cast stones.
Posted on Reply
#34
ARF
mtcn77I need to see it in context with IBM. Both make cpus, both make 5.2+ GHz cpus the norm. Yet, one is the big blue which apple to microsoft hate, the other non-apple and non-microsoft hate. I cannot see it any different from business as usual. It is the fruit bearing tree that is cast stones.


Posted on Reply
#35
mtcn77
ARF

You haven't grasped me on that. Okay fine, sour grapes. However, look back to see how is it different than any other company? IBM for instance. You don't make history by being a sore loser.
Intel makes good products that companies 'want to sell'. That is a different ball game to what you are stating. Others might have good products, but how is it different than any other industry? Are we going to argue intel cpus have good features(speedstep always works to a t)... They aren't nvidia for instance, nor amd. They might not be the most ingenious, but it shows the level of their clearcut standards.
Posted on Reply
#36
ARF
mtcn77You haven't grasped me on that. Okay fine, sour grapes. However, look back to see how is it different than any other company? IBM for instance. You don't make history by being a sore loser.
Intel makes good products that companies 'want to sell'. That is a different ball game to what you are stating. Others might have good products, but how is it different than any other industry? Are we going to argue intel cpus have good features(speedstep always works to a t)... They aren't nvidia for instance, nor amd. They might not be the most ingenious, but it shows the level of their clearcut standards.
"Intel makes good products that companies 'want to sell'."

:confused: Really? 15 years ago when AMD launched the famous Opteron series of server CPUs, Dell wanted to sell them but Intel told them not to and paid up to $900M quarterly in "rebates" from the MOAP.

So, hardly anyone wants to sell Intel products.
Maybe WiFi cards and SSDs, but CPUs and GPUs, hell, no!
Posted on Reply
#37
Dave65
Caring1So how much was Intel paying them?
Was thinking same thing.
Posted on Reply
#38
mtcn77
ARFSo, hardly anyone wants to sell Intel products.
Maybe WiFi cards and SSDs, but CPUs and GPUs, hell, no!
I am thinking the contrary. See I have acer netbooks that I praise for their lightweight sturdiness(nothing beats their scissor switch design and it is a chore to type daily) and I use intel's wifi apertures... but we are speaking of next gen. We don't want discrete wifi solutions any more, am I rite?
Posted on Reply
#39
Dredi
mtcn77I am thinking the contrary. See I have acer netbooks that I praise for their lightweight sturdiness(nothing beats their scissor switch design and it is a chore to type daily) and I use intel's wifi apertures... but we are speaking of next gen. We don't want discrete wifi solutions any more, am I rite?
Then your best bet is waiting for apple laptops with apple cpu’s. Intel is not going to integrate wifi or 5g to their cpu’s.
Posted on Reply
#40
Mirkoskji
In the end, think about this, big companies that need to keep their advantage position use practices that resemble how mafia works. You pay the ones that can give you an advantage over competition, and you cripple the competition at the same time using money as a tool to keep your advantage. Also, you subtly threat others that if they don't do as you said, there may be consequences....

That's mafia at its finest.
Posted on Reply
#41
deu
jeremyshawThey make two releases a year, March and September. Not every company panic blows a truckload of patches every week.
What an intelligent way of saying your dev team cannot do continuous delivery! >D
Posted on Reply
#42
DeathtoGnomes
deuWhat an intelligent way of saying your dev team cannot do continuous delivery! >D
I see it as a way to reduce the size of the dev team. "One person CAN do it all !"
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 21st, 2024 10:36 EST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts