[mdb31]

Where do I say that the speedup is surprising?

My question is whether Intel investing in AVX-512 is wise, given that: -Most existing code is not aware of AVX anyway; -Developers are especially wary of AVX-512, since they expect it to be discontinued soon.

Consequently, wouldn't Intel be better off by using the silicon dedicated to AVX-512 to speed up instruction patterns that are actually used?

[mhh__]

AVX-512 is not going to be discontinued. Intel's reticence/struggling with having it on desktop is irritating but it's here to stay on servers for a long time.

Writing code for a specific SIMD instruction set is non-trivial, but most code will get some benefit by being compiled for the right ISA. You don't get the really fancy instructions because the pattern matching in the compiler isn't very intelligent but quite a lot of stuff is going to benefit by magic.

Even without cutting people without some AVX off, you can have a fast/slow path fairly easily.

[janwas]

My point is that vector instructions are fundamentally necessary and thus "what does it signal" evaluates to "nothing surprising".

Sure, REP STOSB/MOVSB make for a very compact memset/memcpy, but their performance varies depending on CPU feature flags, so you're going to want multiple codepaths anyway. And vector instructions are vastly more flexible than just those two.

Also, I have not met developers who expect AVX-512 to be discontinued (the regrettable ADL situation notwithstanding; that's not a server CPU). AMD is actually adding AVX-512.

[mdb31]

> vector instructions are fundamentally necessary

For which percentage of users?

> AMD is actually adding AVX-512

Which is irrelevant to in-market support for that instruction set.