Article View: comp.os.linux.hardware
Article #811Re: P4 vs Athlon for Linux latexing, is gcc-2.95 responsible?
From: David Kastrup
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:09
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:09
40 lines
3384 bytes
3384 bytes
"David E. Konerding" <dakone@uclink.berkeley.edu> writes: > In article <x5u1o243mw.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup wrote: > > fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@garden.net (George Macdonald) writes: > > > >> On Sun, 16 Jun 2002 09:30:49 GMT, "Robert Myers" <rmyers1400@attbi.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >Without SSE2, which requires that loops be vectorized, a 1.7GHz P2 > >> >is a very weak foating point performer, as many have noted, and as > >> >you have confirmed for yourself. If I take naive code compiled > >> >with icc, my overclocked Celeron running at 1.5MHz will beat a > >> >1.7GHz P4 every time. > >> > >> Are you sure about this? I thought the idea with P4's SSE2 was that > >> for scalar calcs you have addressable registers (no stack) and > >> therefore no need of the FXCH instructions for stack swaps and it > >> runs faster than the old x87 FPU. I've no experience yet but that's > >> how I read things. > > > > The way "how [you] read things" can be improved upon. For an > > example, tell us how you read the first two words of the paragraph > > you quoted above. > > You can't just take the first two words of the quoted paragraph, because > the sentence itself is factually incorrect: > > "Without SSE2, which requires that loops be vectorized..." > > SSE2 can be used as a scalar unit, or as a vector unit. There is some > question of whether or not it's a win when used as a scalar unit-- > although George does give a suggestion why it could be. Bad suggestion since in today's architectures register renaming and queuing makes FXCH practically a 0-cycle operation. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Email: David.Kastrup@t-online.de
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<x5sn3m59wg.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsmm01.sul.t-online.com!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mailReferences:
<3D0B57CB.5060406@nospam.com> <cVYO8.93284$pw3.4355@sccrnsc03> <3d0da9af.198043171@news.garden.net> <x5u1o243mw.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz> <slrnagrnke.an3.dakone@master.hanalei>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f9e16,ea3300a83f1f851c
X-Google-Attributes: gidf9e16,public
X-Google-Thread: 102b32,ea3300a83f1f851c
X-Google-Attributes: gid102b32,public
X-Google-Thread: f65d0,ea3300a83f1f851c
X-Google-Attributes: gidf65d0,public
X-Google-Thread: 1045b9,ea3300a83f1f851c
X-Google-Attributes: gid1045b9,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-17 06:14:02 PST
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsmm01.sul.t-online.com!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail
From: David Kastrup <David.Kastrup@t-online.de>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.hardware,gnu.gcc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.text.tex
Subject: Re: P4 vs Athlon for Linux latexing, is gcc-2.95 responsible?
Date: 17 Jun 2002 15:09:51 +0200
Organization: T-Online
Lines: 40
Sender: dak@tupik.goethe.zz
Message-ID: <x5sn3m59wg.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz>
References: <3D0B57CB.5060406@nospam.com> <cVYO8.93284$pw3.4355@sccrnsc03> <3d0da9af.198043171@news.garden.net> <x5u1o243mw.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz> <slrnagrnke.an3.dakone@master.hanalei>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.t-online.com 1024319465 04 28276 dCJpb05GSJAPiT 020617 13:11:05
X-Complaints-To: abuse@t-online.com
X-Sender: 520018396234-0001@t-dialin.net
X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6,xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl
\!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN;i";/yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^
Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50