www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
From: | Lord Shaman <shaman AT nlc DOT net DOT au> |
Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Subject: | Re: Is DJGPP that efficient? |
Date: | Thu, 19 Dec 1996 09:47:55 +1100 |
Organization: | Lord Shaman |
Lines: | 18 |
Distribution: | inet |
Message-ID: | <32B8749B.6DFD@nlc.net.au> |
References: | <199612161347 DOT IAA01261 AT delorie DOT com> |
Reply-To: | shaman AT nlc DOT net DOT au |
NNTP-Posting-Host: | dialine29.nlc.net.au |
Mime-Version: | 1.0 |
To: | DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> |
DJ-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
I've got the original docs from the intel homepage for assembler programmers, and the Pentium floating point mul is nowhere near 3 clocks. The throughput is something like 20 to 60 clocks depending on precision. The fastest version is about 4-6 clocks faster than the integer mul. On the other hand, the mmx can do 8 8 bit muls in a couple of clocks, and the Pentium Pro can do a 32bit mul in something like 3 or 4. Fixed point seems better by the moment. (I'd still use floating point for trig though) -- . . . the Lord Shaman ------------------------------------------------------------------ There are only three kind of mathematicians: Those who can count and those who can't. http://www.nlc.net.au/~shaman or mailto:shaman AT nlc DOT net DOT au ------------------------------------------------------------------
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |