Interest in Optimized Builds (see also: Pale Moon AVX builds)

[Basilisk-Dev]

Is there interest in Basilisk AVX/AVX2/some other sort of optimization builds for x86_64?

For Linux I would be compiling with -march=x86_64-v3 with GCC 11 on Oracle Linux 8. See Wikipedia and Phoronix for more info on x86_64 optimization levels in GCC and Clang.

x86_64-v3 was selected because I feel it provides a good balance of CPU features (AVX/AV2/etc) and compatibility. It should work with most systems released since around 2015 or so.

For Windows I'd just be doing AVX2 builds using the same arguments as the Pale Moon AVX builds as discussed here.

[billmcct]

It should work with most systems released since around 2015 or so.
For Windows I'd just be doing AVX2 builds using the same arguments as the Pale Moon AVX builds as discussed here.

AVX will work for 2nd gen systems Feb 2011 up.
AVX2 will work for 4th gen systems May 2014 up.

Any chip supporting AVX2 is backward compatible which means also including AVX.

viewtopic.php?t=30909&p=249157#p249157

[Basilisk-Dev]

AVX will work for 2nd gen systems Feb 2011 up.
AVX2 will work for 4th gen systems May 2014 up.

Any chip supporting AVX2 is backward compatible which means also including AVX.

You are correct when solely referring to AVX and AVX2, but x86_64-v3 includes more optimizations than just AVX/AVX2.

In addition, I say 2015 and up to account for people using AMD CPUs as well as Intel. AMD didn't get AVX2 until 2015 with the Excavator architecture.

[billmcct]

Yeah I was only looking at Intel architecture.
Since I don't have any AMD computers I really didn't research it.

[TTraveler]

In the poll maybe there should be a choice for:

"Why should I have any Interest in Optimized Builds?...I don't have the foggiest idea WTF an Optimized Build is, much less HTF I would possibly benefit from one!"

[athenian200]

In the poll maybe there should be a choice for:

"Why should I have any Interest in Optimized Builds?...I don't have the foggiest idea WTF an Optimized Build is, much less HTF I would possibly benefit from one!"

Well, they're supposed to be faster than unoptimized builds, but the downside is that they don't work on older hardware.

Think of it like this... a race car's engine is optimized for racing, but it is less fuel-efficient and noisier than the engines used in ordinary street cars. So under the right conditions, it can go fast... but if you don't have those conditions and you're sensitive to noise or fuel-efficiency, you might not want an engine optimized for racing.

It's similar with software... optimized software goes fast on beefier systems, but won't work at all on older systems that don't have the kind of fuel it needs to go fast. Like trying to run a race car on regular fuel like you'd use for a regular streetcar, it would just be bad for the engine and not work out well.

[Moonchild]

In the poll maybe there should be a choice for:

"Why should I have any Interest in Optimized Builds?...I don't have the foggiest idea WTF an Optimized Build is, much less HTF I would possibly benefit from one!"

So how is this not covered by "I don't care"? Seriously.

[billmcct]

I really wish MC could add an LIKE button to these forum posts.

I really liked your analogy using a race car and it was really to the point.
I am a BIG NASCAR fan.

[Basilisk-Dev]

In the poll maybe there should be a choice for:

"Why should I have any Interest in Optimized Builds?...I don't have the foggiest idea WTF an Optimized Build is, much less HTF I would possibly benefit from one!"

I added a special option just for you

Sadly it reset the vote count, the previous count was
Yes: 4
I don't care: 3
I don't use Basilisk: 5 (thanks guys, I really appreciate that)

[RedRamGT]

It might be good to keep the 32-Bit version the way it is now, and change the 64-Bit version to add AVX support.

[Basilisk-Dev]

It might be good to keep the 32-Bit version the way it is now, and change the 64-Bit version to add AVX support.

For Linux, there is only 64-bit currently. If I were to release 32-bit Linux builds this is what I would do.

For Windows, 32-bit builds would be left as-is. This would only affect 64-bit builds on both Windows and Linux.

[Shadow]

This would only affect 64-bit builds on both Windows and Linux.

Are you implying 64-bit Win would be AVX2 only and no as-is anymore? That'd unfortunately be me out.

[Basilisk-Dev]

Are you implying 64-bit Win would be AVX2 only and no as-is anymore? That'd unfortunately be me out.

All existing builds, including unoptimized 64-bit builds, would still be available. This topic is solely adding new builds.

[TTraveler]

In the poll maybe there should be a choice for:

"Why should I have any Interest in Optimized Builds?...I don't have the foggiest idea WTF an Optimized Build is, much less HTF I would possibly benefit from one!"

Well, they're supposed to be faster than unoptimized builds, but the downside is that they don't work on older hardware.

Think of it like this... a race car's engine is optimized for racing, but it is less fuel-efficient and noisier than the engines used in ordinary street cars. So under the right conditions, it can go fast... but if you don't have those conditions and you're sensitive to noise or fuel-efficiency, you might not want an engine optimized for racing.

It's similar with software... optimized software goes fast on beefier systems, but won't work at all on older systems that don't have the kind of fuel it needs to go fast. Like trying to run a race car on regular fuel like you'd use for a regular streetcar, it would just be bad for the engine and not work out well.

Thank you @athenian200 and @Basilisk-Dev

I believe I understand now.....My System is Windows 10 Home (latest Build/updates) .... Intel Core i7 ... Nvidia Geforce GTX 980m

If the future "Optimized Builds" will be compatible with my System Configuration ... I'm presently satisfied with Basilisk 2024.02.03 ...I would be willing to give an "Optimized Build" a fair go.

If down the road the "Optimized Build" becomes incompatible with my system (I certainly would hope there will be a fall-back option available) ---> utilizing everything the latest version has to offer (security being paramount) minus the incompatible optimization.

By that time, if economically feasible, I would hope to secure a replacement to my trusty system with more state-of-the-art configurations.Thanks again ....

[printedz]

I know I'm late to the poll, but I'd be very interested in an optimized build for Windows!