I actually did some benchmarking on this once upon a time[1] and it turns out that it's actually really easy to write something that is only ~5x slower[2] (until you get to matrices that don't fit in RAM):
(4, 4, 4) (5, 5, 5) (32, 32, 32) (33, 33, 33) (256, 256, 256) (257, 257, 257) (512, 512, 512) (513, 513, 513) (1024, 1024, 1024) (1025, 1025, 1025)
–––––––– ––––––––– ––––––––– –––––––––––– –––––––––––– ––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––––––
:naive 0.0 0.0 1.3e-5 2.0e-5 0.0114 0.0133 0.0942 0.106 3.25 2.39
:tiled 0.0 0.0 2.7e-5 2.2e-5 0.0139 0.0121 0.154 0.101 1.25 0.888
:fastf77 0.0 0.0 8.0e-6 8.5e-6 0.00543 0.00563 0.0426 0.0445 0.437 0.448
:blas 4.5e-6 4.0e-6 1.9e-5 2.1e-5 0.000972 0.00109 0.00712 0.00744 0.0582 0.0607
(Units are seconds per multiplication.)
Obviously OpenBLAS is so easy to package that it's not really worth avoiding it, but it was very eye-opening to see just how easy it is to get within an order of magnitude (easier, in fact, than getting into the 10x-20x range).
[1]: https://gist.github.com/Sean1708/69c5694048e9a9ca7bd84fcbc9e...
[2]: 8-core 3.4GHz Haswell i7 with 32kB L1, 256kB L2, 8MB L3, and 8GB RAM.
Obviously OpenBLAS is so easy to package that it's not really worth avoiding it, but it was very eye-opening to see just how easy it is to get within an order of magnitude (easier, in fact, than getting into the 10x-20x range).
[1]: https://gist.github.com/Sean1708/69c5694048e9a9ca7bd84fcbc9e...
[2]: 8-core 3.4GHz Haswell i7 with 32kB L1, 256kB L2, 8MB L3, and 8GB RAM.