We get PP-512 = 9600 t/s, TG-128 = 234 t/s
(but we need to use 8 CPU threads, else results are lower,
so clearly there is something being computed on the CPU).
PP-512 is very close to PP-512(fp16) = 9800 t/s
Just scaler and AVX2 for now.
PP-512 is even faster (325 t/s on the Ryzn-7950X, 404 t/s on
Ryzen-5975WX). We lose ~6-7% for TG due to being memory bound and
the model being 10% larger.
PP is decent with 131 t/s (q4_0 has 150 t/s).
TG is better than last commit but still bad at 33.1 t/s
(in comparison q4_0 gets 52.3 t/s).
I had to go to the (0, 1, 2) table. Apple Silicon clearly
does not like operations with signs.
2x6 (Nx x Ny) tiles instead of 3x4. We get 142.7 t/s on the Ryzen-5975WX
up from 138 t/s. We use Nx registers to preload the fp16 weights,
so total registers required is Nx * (Ny + 1), so 15 in the case
of of 3 x 4 tiles and 14 for 2 x 6 tiles. I guess, the one spare
register helps. But maybe it is just a matter of how things get
loaded into the cache. On the 7950X I did try 3 x 8 and it did
not perform as well as 5 x 5.
Basically use what I did for Arm.
Improves PP performance to 141.7 t/s up from 136 t/s
on the Ryzen-7950X (32 vector registers, so we use 5x5 tiling).
This is now 10% faster than tinyBLAS.
There is a minor improvement also on the Ryzen-5975WX
(16 vector registers, so we use 4x3 tiling): we get
138 t/s up from 136 t/s. tinyBLAS is at 132 t/s.
I was happily using _mm256_packs_epi32() to pack the
q8_0 x q8_0 dot products back to int16_t, and getting useful
results. But theoretically this can overflow, so it is
better to use _mm256_unpacklo_ and _mm256_unpackhi_ to combine
the 4 dot products using int32_t additions. This is (almost)
as fast, unlike _mm256_hadd_epi32(), which seems excessively
slow on the Ryzen-7950X.
Here the performance gain is more significant. E.g., for q4_1,
PP-512 becomes 168 t/s up from 137 t/s.
Now the performance gap to q4_0 is so significant that I
wonder if I should change to using Q8_1 also for the
qX_0 legacy quants.
It was actually ready but not turned on.
Having forgotten, I made a new implementation along the
lines of the fp16 implementation (i.e., using tiling).
That matched tiinyBLAS performance. But the existing
implementation that I now turned on is faster:
PP-512 = 134 t/s vs 128.3 t/s for tinyBLAS
TG-128 = 8.7 t/s vs 8.3 t/s for tinyBLAS (@ 4 threads)
