Article View: comp.os.linux.hardware
Article #814Re: P4 vs Athlon for Linux latexing, is gcc-2.95 responsible?
From: Robert Redelmeier
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 14:31
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 14:31
25 lines
3090 bytes
3090 bytes
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@garden.net> wrote: : 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. Saving FXCH hardly matters. The big difference is that SSE2 can do two double precision flops in parallel once the data has been vectorized. IIRC, an FPU or SSE multiply takes 4 clocks and can be pipeline started every two clocks. But the SSE will deliver two results in the halves of the 128bit XMM register, while the FPU will only deliver one 80bit result. SSE is a big advantage for vectorizable floating point calcs and is essential to match or beat AMD whose K7 architecture allows a great deal more multiple-issue parallel instruction processing. -- Robert
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<mpmP8.35656$Kz4.3500509300@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn1feed!worldnet.att.net!207.115.63.142!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr12.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mailReferences:
<3D0B57CB.5060406@nospam.com> <cVYO8.93284$pw3.4355@sccrnsc03> <3d0da9af.198043171@news.garden.net>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: 1045b9,ea3300a83f1f851c
X-Google-Attributes: gid1045b9,public
X-Google-Thread: f65d0,ea3300a83f1f851c
X-Google-Attributes: gidf65d0,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-17 07:32:02 PST
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn1feed!worldnet.att.net!207.115.63.142!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr12.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Sender: <rjr@adsl-65-69-5-30.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net>
From: redelm@ev1.net.invalid (Robert Redelmeier)
Subject: Re: P4 vs Athlon for Linux latexing, is gcc-2.95 responsible?
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.hardware,gnu.gcc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.text.tex
References: <3D0B57CB.5060406@nospam.com> <cVYO8.93284$pw3.4355@sccrnsc03> <3d0da9af.198043171@news.garden.net>
Organization: "self"
User-Agent: tin/1.5.11-20020130 ("Toxicity") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.17 (i686))
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <mpmP8.35656$Kz4.3500509300@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.69.5.30
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com 1024324306 ST000 65.69.5.30 (Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:31:46 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:31:46 EDT
X-UserInfo1: FKPO@MONGJW[RTXXCBCBNWX@RJ_XPDLMN@GZ_GYO^BTJUZ]CDVW[AKK[J\]^HVKHG^EWZHBLO^[\NH_AZFWGN^\DHNVMX_DHHX[FSQKBOTS@@BP^]C@RHS_AGDDC[AJM_T[GZNRNZAY]GNCPBDYKOLK^_CZFWPGHZIXW@C[AFKBBQS@E@DAZ]VDFUNTQQ]FN
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 14:31:46 GMT