🚀 go-pugleaf

I just compiled with fastmath.h.
Since in last day I added some debug variables to my code, it has slown 
down... But, with fastmath.h I didn't gain any speed (at least not on P4 - I 
only tested it on P4 at work).
Today I will try it on Centrino and I will post results to group.

I already tryed with HT turned off, it also didn't work anything faster...


"Mark Jacobs" <http://www.jacobsm.com/mjmsg?Borland%20Newsgroup> wrote in 
message news:419b4ebb$1@newsgroups.borland.com...
> 1) AMD make better CPUs than Intel, and are still doing so (IMO).
> 2) I run a P4 2.8GHz (HT) brand new PC at work and it is about as fast as 
> my
> 1.4GHz AMD Athlon based PC which is 4 years old now!!
> 3) Instead of putting #include <math.h> in your application code modules, 
> put
> #include <fastmath.h>, and see what the results are then. Please post them 
> up
> here again for us to see.
> 4) BCB6 does not generate HT-friendly code. Try turning off HT in the BIOS 
> for
> the P4 PCs, and see what the times are then. Again, let us know what they 
> are.
> 5) We are waiting to hear whether there will be any updates to BCB6. An
> announcement is due on 15th December.
>
> You do not state what flavour of XP you have. I use SP1 and it is 
> definitely
> faster than SP2. I investigated as to why this should be, and discovered 
> that
> M$ have put loads of security-checking code into the kernel of the OS in 
> SP2,
> and this will slow most anything down, but offer improved security (a bit 
> like
> a sandbox). I have already written my own tray app called MJ Registry 
> Watcher,
> which monitors the system for unsolicited changes to important registry 
> keys
> and system files ( http://www.jacobsm.com/index.htm#sft ). So, I 
> uninstalled
> SP2 (you have to reinstall SP1 to do this - you'll need the original XP 
> SP1 cd
> with your key), applied the only SP1 patch that was ever useful - the RPC
> patch KB823980, and run the latest ZoneAlarm with MJ Registry Watcher. I 
> am
> untouchable and yet very very fast compared with SP2. What really got me 
> about
> SP2 was the increased boot up time - my God, what the heck were they 
> playing
> at when M$ thought this one up!?! Perhaps they need to support Intel's
> flagging chip sales, by making their OS so slow, everyone has to upgrade 
> their
> CPUs!
> -- 
> Mark Jacobs
> DK Computing
> http://www.dkcomputing.co.uk
>
> "Matija" <matija@REMOVEtel.fer.hr> wrote in message
> news:4199b948$1@newsgroups.borland.com...
> | I developed some algorithms in C++ and compiled them using CPP Builder 
> 6.
> | It is about extensive calculations, and all algorithms use object 
> oriented
> | approach (using objects instead of some static fields etc.).
> |
> | Performance results are as follows:
> |  1. P4 2.8GHz HT, 512MB RAM, WinXP - calc. time - 88 sec
> |  2. P4 2.8GHz HT, 512MB RAM, Win2000 - calc. time - 55 sec
> |  3. P4 3.2GHz HT, 2GB RAM, WinXP - calc. time - 75 sec
> |  4. AMD Athlon 1.8 GHz (2200+), cca 700MB RAM, WinXP - calc. time - 30 
> sec
> |
> | Could someone explain why AMD is working so much faster?
> | I thought it could be because standard FPU operations are faster on AMD
> | (according Sandra benchmarks)?!
> |
> | As much I understood CPP Builder 6 compiler doesn't support SSE2 
> instruction
> | set (which should increase P4 performances).
> |
> | Are there any compiler updates that could allow SSE2 instruction set to 
> be
> | used?
> |
> |
>
>