akosf C37 performance observations thread

Ulrich Metzner
Ulrich Metzner
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 113
Credit: 963,370
RAC: 0

RE: RE: AMD added SSE

Message 26006 in response to message 26004

Quote:
Quote:
AMD added SSE with the athlon XP

My Athlon XP 1700+ shows as a T-Bird with CPU-Z. S38 appears not to work on it.

Maybe it's an Athlon 4 Mobile? This one is often recognized as an Athlon XP but isn't capable of SSE and is in reality a modernized Athlon Thunderbird.

Aloha, Uli

Erik
Erik
Joined: 14 Feb 06
Posts: 2,815
Credit: 2,645,600
RAC: 0

RE: My Athlon XP 1700+

Message 26007 in response to message 26004

Quote:
My Athlon XP 1700+ shows as a T-Bird with CPU-Z. S38 appears not to work on it.

Did you mean 1600+?

Ulrich Metzner
Ulrich Metzner
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 113
Credit: 963,370
RAC: 0

How about optimizing the C37

How about optimizing the C37 (=plain MMX) further, as the SSE-version (S39X) also? My trusty old Athlon Thunderbird (and probably a bunch of other processors out there also) would be very thankful, as it already is for the C37-version :D

Aloha, Uli

RandyC
RandyC
Joined: 18 Jan 05
Posts: 3,824
Credit: 111,139,797
RAC: 0

RE: RE: My Athlon XP

Message 26009 in response to message 26007

Quote:
Quote:
My Athlon XP 1700+ shows as a T-Bird with CPU-Z. S38 appears not to work on it.

Did you mean 1600+?

No.

I run 4 systems:
Athlon 1333mhz
AMD XP 1600+
AMD XP 1700+
AMD XP 2600+

The 1600 and 2600 both are SSE capable, but the Athlon and 1700 are not.

Seti Classic Final Total: 11446 WU.

Akos Fekete
Akos Fekete
Joined: 13 Nov 05
Posts: 561
Credit: 4,527,270
RAC: 0

RE: How about optimizing

Message 26010 in response to message 26008

Quote:
How about optimizing the C37 (=plain MMX) further, as the SSE-version (S39X) also? My trusty old Athlon Thunderbird (and probably a bunch of other processors out there also) would be very thankful, as it already is for the C37-version :D

C40 will be the next. Is it ok?
But don't rely on big improvement. SSE is a very strong weapon.
Perhaps 3DNow! would be interesting. MMX doesn't play...

Future plans:
C40 (387 compatible) -> S40 (SSE compatible) -> S240 (SSE2 compatible)

RandyC
RandyC
Joined: 18 Jan 05
Posts: 3,824
Credit: 111,139,797
RAC: 0

RE: RE: How about

Message 26011 in response to message 26010

Quote:
Quote:
How about optimizing the C37 (=plain MMX) further, as the SSE-version (S39X) also? My trusty old Athlon Thunderbird (and probably a bunch of other processors out there also) would be very thankful, as it already is for the C37-version :D

C40 will be the next. Is it ok?
But don't rely on big improvement. SSE is a very strong weapon.
Perhaps 3DNow! would be interesting. MMX doesn't play...

Future plans:
C40 (387 compatible) -> S40 (SSE compatible) -> S240 (SSE2 compatible)

Both my non-SSE systems (Athlon and XP 1700) support 3DNow! so this would be great for me if it works!

Seti Classic Final Total: 11446 WU.

Akos Fekete
Akos Fekete
Joined: 13 Nov 05
Posts: 561
Credit: 4,527,270
RAC: 0

RE: RE: C40 (387

Message 26012 in response to message 26011

Quote:
Quote:
C40 (387 compatible) -> S40 (SSE compatible) -> S240 (SSE2 compatible)
Both my non-SSE systems (Athlon and XP 1700) support 3DNow! so this would be great for me if it works!

Well, then I should do an add-in.
C40 (387 compatible) -> D40 (3DNow! compatible) -> S40 (SSE compatible) -> S240 (SSE2 compatible)

I'm looking forward to trying out the new official application. Both will use the same algorithm. Which will be faster? Cxx vs. new official?

The Sxx codes use different method, it will be the next suggestion to Bruce.
... and the amazing sin/cos interpolator :-)

Ulrich Metzner
Ulrich Metzner
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 113
Credit: 963,370
RAC: 0

RE: Well, then I should do

Message 26013 in response to message 26012

Quote:
Well, then I should do an add-in.
C40 (387 compatible) -> D40 (3DNow! compatible) -> S40 (SSE compatible) -> S240 (SSE2 compatible)

My trusty ol'Athlon will totally go nuts then :D

Aloha, Uli

J Langley
J Langley
Joined: 30 Dec 05
Posts: 50
Credit: 58,338
RAC: 0

RE: RE: RE: C40 (387

Message 26014 in response to message 26012

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
C40 (387 compatible) -> S40 (SSE compatible) -> S240 (SSE2 compatible)
Both my non-SSE systems (Athlon and XP 1700) support 3DNow! so this would be great for me if it works!

Well, then I should do an add-in.
C40 (387 compatible) -> D40 (3DNow! compatible) -> S40 (SSE compatible) -> S240 (SSE2 compatible)

I'm looking forward to trying out the new official application. Both will use the same algorithm. Which will be faster? Cxx vs. new official?

The Sxx codes use different method, it will be the next suggestion to Bruce.
... and the amazing sin/cos interpolator :-)

Do you expect D40 or S40 to be faster, or is it too soon to say? (My Athlon XP supports both 3DNow! and SSE, but not SSE2...)

Akos Fekete
Akos Fekete
Joined: 13 Nov 05
Posts: 561
Credit: 4,527,270
RAC: 0

RE: Do you expect D40 or

Message 26015 in response to message 26014

Quote:
Do you expect D40 or S40 to be faster, or is it too soon to say? (My Athlon XP supports both 3DNow! and SSE, but not SSE2...)

It isn't question. D40 will be much slower.
3DNow! handles just 16 numbers againts 32 numbers of SSE.
It means that I won't be able to do overlapping under 3DNow!
The goal of D40 is doing a faster code than C40 for older AMD processors.

Edit: But a good news, I like 3DNow! :-)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.