> "From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me. I craved the strength and certainty of steel."

14% all the time vs 35% some of the time

edit: Closing numbers are far less impressive than those buried in the middle of the post. Confusing; bye everyone

https://docs.modular.com/mojo/faq/#open-source

>(2771.35/2775.49 - 1) * 100 = -.14916285052369131300

Flagged.

transpose_naive - Basic implementation with TMA transfers

transpose_swizzle - Adds swizzling optimization for better memory access patterns

transpose_swizzle_batched - Adds thread coarsening (batch processing) on top of swizzling

Performance comparison with CUDA: The Mojo implementations achieve bandwidths of:

transpose_naive: 1056.08 GB/s (32.0025% of max)

transpose_swizzle: 1437.55 GB/s (43.5622% of max)

transpose_swizzle_batched: 2775.49 GB/s (84.1056% of max)

via the GitHub - simveit/efficient_transpose_mojo

Comparing to the CUDA implementations mentioned in the article:

Naive kernel: Mojo achieves 1056.08 GB/s vs CUDA's 875.46 GB/s

Swizzle kernel: Mojo achieves 1437.55 GB/s vs CUDA's 1251.76 GB/s

Batched swizzle kernel: Mojo achieves 2775.49 GB/s vs CUDA's 2771.35 GB/s

So there is highly efficient matrix transpose in Mojo

All three Mojo kernels outperform their CUDA counterparts, with the naive and swizzle kernels showing significant improvements (20.6% and 14.8% faster respectively), while the final optimized kernel achieves essentially identical performance (slightly better by 4.14 GB/s).

The "flag" here seemed innapropriate given that its true this implementation is indeed faster, and certainly the final iteration could be improved on further. It wasn't wrong to say 14% or even 20%.