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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
      
------------------------------------------------------------------